Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SELBY BRIDGE BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 26 April.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered upon Thursday 26 April.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 26 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Public Order

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to announce his proposals for new legislation on public order.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has not yet completed his review of public order law.

Mr. Bennett: If the Minister were to find a small group of highly motivated trade unionists holding meetings in secret and coming to decisions about which no one else knew on the upholding of Britain's criminal and civil law, would he not rightly be alarmed? Is that not just what the chief constables are doing at the national reporting centre, and is it not time that they were made accountable to the local police committees and to the House?

Mr. Hurd: That matter was exhaustively explored in the debate on Tuesday and it has been made clear that the

operations at the national reporting centre are not unprecendented and fall well within the tradition of policing in Britain.

Mr. Baldry: May I ask a question that is more pertinent to the original question on the Order Paper? The Law Commission's report on public order offences deals simply with offences of riot, rout and affray which, by and large, are not used much as a means of preserving public order because most courts are involved with offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1963. May I make this request?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Baldry: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In considering the reform of the law on public order, is it not possible to have a comprehensive reform of the Public Order Act at the same time as the law on riot and the other common law offences?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Law Commission's report on offences against public order. The report that he mentioned and the review that we are undertaking are parallel but separate. They overlap in some respects.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the use of tens of thousands of policemen in the mining areas a recognition by the Government of a deficiency in industrial relations law, or are they simply too scared to use what they have put on the statute book?

Mr. Hurd: It is a recognition of the situation created by the decision to encourage very large numbers of pickets to operate in circumstances which could, without the police action, amount to intimidation.

Recorded Crime Levels

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the level of recorded crime.

Mrs. Roe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when he next meets the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis he will discuss the level of recorded crime in London.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): The number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in 1983 was 1 per cent. less than in 1982. In London, notifiable offences recorded were 4 per cent. down. We should not make too much of a single year's figures, but I am encouraged by them. I discuss these matters with the Commissioner when we meet, and his strategy for tackling crime in London has my full support.

Mr. Taylor: I agree that it would be wrong to draw a general conclusion from the movement that has occurred. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, however, that it is encouraging to have had a 1 per cent. fall after 10 per cent. increases in recent years? Will this encourge him to persist with his policy of stronger deterrents against serious crime, thereby giving greater protection to the law-abiding public?

Mr. Brittan: The change in the long-term trend is encouraging, even making all the allowances and


qualifications that one must, and I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the measures of deterrence and effective policing that the Government are pursuing.

Mrs. Roe: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, will he congratulate him on the success of the neighbourhood watch schemes, which were launched in London last September? It has recently been reported that in one London area there has been a 60 per cent. drop in the number of burglaries. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that neighbourhood schemes highlight the important role that public awareness has in police work?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that the concept of the neighbourhood watch scheme has been followed, sometimes under different names, in many other parts of the country. It is not just a London or even an urban phenomenon; it has been popular and found to be helpful wherever it has been followed.

Ms. Clare Short: Is the Home Secretary aware that, despite all the Government's rhetoric and the money that they have thrown at law and order, they have failed significantly to make our society a safer place in which to live? Will they now change direction and look for methods of preventing crime and making areas, particularly inner city areas, safe for people to live in?

Mr. Brittan: The dangers of rhetoric are well illustrated by that supplementary question. I agree, however, with the hon. Lady about crime prevention. One of the major thrusts of our strategy has been to give increased attention to crime prevention, and the neighbourhood watch scheme is such a development. I have set up a crime prevention unit at the Home Office. We are giving increasing attention to crime prevention, and to that extent I agree with the hon. Lady.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Home Secretary aware that the change from specialised squads in west Yorkshire to the movement towards involvement with the community has led to a significant improvement in the rates of recorded crime and detection? Will he encourage the police to be more involved in the whole process of the inhibition of crime by involvement with the community?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that involvement with the community is important, and that is why the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, currently going through the House, provides a statutory basis for consultation between the police and the community. It is designed to achieve precisely the objective that the hon. Gentleman has identified, and I hope that the Bill will now commend itself to the whole House.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the police on the improvement in the serious crime figures. Is my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless aware of reports of a serious deterioration in respect of drug abuse? Will he take steps to ensure that this evil trade, which leads to an expectation of life of five years in its victims, is brought under control very rapidly indeed?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that drug abuse is an extremely worrying phenomenon. The gravity with which it is regarded is reflected, for example, in the fact that drug traffickers are among the categories

whom I have identified as being people who should not normally get parole if they are sentenced to terms of imprisonment of more than five years.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in 1979 he campaigned on the legend that crime under the Labour party was too high and that his party would reduce it? Is it not a fact that the rate of serious crime is now 30 per cent. higher than it was five years ago, with the number of burglaries 50 per cent. up? When will he bring the level of serious crime and burglary down to the levels which five years ago he said were intolerably high?

Mr. Brittan: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that trends can be reversed quickly—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it.

Mr. Brittan: —he must be quite ignorant of the matters on which he purports to speak. He knows perfectly well that the increase in police manning levels and the changes in the handling of the matters that we are discussing take time to have their effect. I am glad that there are some signs that the trends that existed when the right hon. Gentleman's Government were in power are now coming under control. As I have said, it is wrong to regard one year's figures as the determining factor.

Police Efficiency and Effectiveness

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve police efficiency and effectiveness.

Mr. Brittan: Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary are encouraging forces to apply the principles of efficient and effective management contained in the guidance that I recently issued to chief officers and police authorities. My Department contributes to improved efficiency and effectiveness through its work in such important areas as crime prevention, police training, new technology and research.

Mr. Brown: That is a helpful answer. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on Humberside all the work that he is trying to do through the inspectorate will be undermined because the police committee is deliberately withholding the funds necessary to ensure adequate policing in the county?

Mr. Brittan: I am very well aware of the activities of the Humberside police committee, as I have visited Humberside quite recently. Of course, those activities have forced the chief constable to decide on the allocation of resources that it has made available. In the light of subsequent developments, I shall look to the inspectorate to report on the effect of the reduction in resources on the efficiency of the force.

Mr. Bell: Will the Home Secretary consider sending another circular to the police suggesting that the inspectorate's reports be made public?

Mr. Brittan: The value of the reports would be diminished if it was not possible to include confidential material in them. Home Office circular No. 114/1983 readily makes clear the factors which I think can assist in improving police efficiency and effectiveness.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most successful ways of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the police in dealing with the sort of crime that alarms people in large cities is to put even more policemen on the streets? What steps is he taking to achieve that?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. However, exactly how to carry out that policy will vary according to the needs of particular forces. The operational plan for moving in that direction must be a matter for each chief constable. It can be done. For example, the police commissioner in London has redeployed his force in such a way that many hundreds of policemen are back on the beat—something that has not happened previously.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that the efficiency of the police force is, to some degree, dependent on the amount of investment in both manpower and facilities in the police service? If local authorities are restricted on the amount of money available, and if the Home Secretary wants an improved and more efficient police force, will he consider putting more central Government funds into the police service?

Mr. Brittan: Local authorities decide their priorities between services. The amount that the Government have provided is carefully designed to ensure that if the Government's priorities are reflected in local authorities' decision making, the effectiveness of police forces throughout the country will be enhanced.

Brighton (Peace Movement Demonstration)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Sussex concerning the commandeering of a Southdown bus by police in Brighton on Tuesday 13 March to take peace movement demonstrators to the local police station; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): No bus was commandeered. On 13 March, 25 people sat down in Preston road, Brighton, bringing traffic to a halt. Police officers arriving on foot or by motor cycle arrested 11 people, but no police vehicle was able to reach the scene. The driver of a nearby bus readily agree'! to carry the people arrested to a police station.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Transport and General Workers Union, by whom I am sponsored, and the busworkers are gravely concerned about the possible use of public vehicles for police purposes. Will he, as legal person, consider the propensity of bus men to suffer injuries and to be involved in actions against the police for false arrest.

Mr. Waddington: One must get one's priorities right. This is a good example of the way in which the vast majority of people are prepared to afford every assistance to the police in carrying out their duties. The bus driver was willing to help the police, as I expect every reasonable bus driver would do.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my hon. and learned Friend not take this question too seriously? Would not the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) have been even more upset if the demonstrators had been required to walk?

Mr. Waddington: That may be so. Clearly, one must not take this question too seriously. This was a potentially serious matter, because the entrance to the fire station was blocked.

Mr. Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respond to that point?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear points of order after questions.

Civil Defence College

Mr. Burt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider developing the Civil Defence College as a centre of excellence for civil defence.

Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. Following the retirements later this year of Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mayor and Mr. Frank Armstrong, the college will assume responsibility for fostering voluntary effort in civil defence and advising on the training and exercising of civil defence volunteers. The Civil Service Commission will advertise after Easter an open competition for the post of college principal.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary take this opportunity of thanking Sir Leslie Mayor and Mr. Armstrong for their excellent work.

Mr. Burt: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. In view of the increasing worry expressed by many local authorities, is my right hon. Friend contemplating taking any further steps? Will he consider expanding the library facilities at the college to include an information service?

Mr. Hurd: I shall consider of expanding the library facilities. We shall be advertising at the Home Office for a new post of civil defence adviser, who will concentrate initially on reviewing the progress made by local authorities in carrying out their functions under the new civil defence functions.

Mr. Hunter: As the weight and pattern of a future nuclear attack cannot be predicted, will my right hon. Friend comment on contingency National Health Service planning? Is he satisfied that sufficient attention is being given to that matter?

Mr. Hurd: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. With the cooperation of the British Medical Association, he is carrying forward the work of planning medical services in case of war.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is it not now time to stop all this nonsense and the waste of time and money? Is it not time to drop the pretence that there is any adequate defence against nuclear war, when the only real defence is to work for peace and not, as the Government are doing, to prepare for war? Is it not now time that the Government devoted the same degree of energy to the disarmament talks as they are giving to the creation of a Dad's Army?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is making himself look very foolish if in the House he starts to rubbish the concept of civil defence, which is supported by all parties as a commonsense, humanitarian response to the possibilities of either conventional or nuclear attack.

Sentencing Policy (Reparation)

Mr. Wood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce legislation to increase the part played by reparation in the sentencing of offenders.

Mr. Gale: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take for encouraging reparation by offenders to their victims.

Mr. Hayward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for the victims of crime to receive greater attention within the criminal justice system.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): We plan to encourage and monitor experimental schemes for reparation by offenders to victims within existing powers. The experiments will show whether legislation is needed. We want also to enhance the ability of the criminal justice system to respond more generally to the needs of victims. My right hon. and learned Friend is examining various ways of achieving this objective.

Mr. Wood: Many of my constitutents feel that there should be much greater awareness of the suffering and loss of victims. Will my hon. Friend encourage the courts to take sufficient account of the opportunities within present laws to help the victims of crime?

Mr. Mellor: I warmly endorse my hon. Friend's comments. We believe that more should be done for those victims. We have increased the amount of money for victim support schemes. We believe that thought should be given to keeping victims more closely in touch with what is happening at trials. The courts possess many powers to ensure that victims are adequately compensated for offences committed against them. We have doubled the sums that magistrates can award from 1 May.

Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to young offenders who are convicted of acts of violence and vandalism?

Mr. Mellor: We have to be cautious about reparation. There are some offences, especially those of violence, when only the normal penalties available to the courts will do. We believe that efforts by young people to make direct reparation to the persons they have harmed in acts of vandalism would be useful. Some acknowledgment on the part of the offender of the trouble that he has caused to the individual and society might lead to a greater awareness in his mind of his duties and obligations and the need not to behave irresponsibly.

Mr. Hayward: Will the general review include a review of the operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? That might make a contribution to the overall review.

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. and learned Friend has announced that we want to take the opportunity during the lifetime of this Parliament to put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on a statutory footing. As a prelude to that we have set up an interdepartmental working group to study the way in which the scheme has operated in recent years. We shall shortly be inviting interested bodies to submit evidence so that we can go forward after a full review has been carried out.

Mr. Alex Carlile: As thousands are to be deprived of their right to claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board by the large increase in the lower limit, what steps will the Government take to ensure that the Judicial Studies Board brings to the attention of judges the importance of passing a sentence of compensation as a substantive sentence in cases where injuries have been significant but not severe?

Mr. Mellor: We want the judiciary to make use of its power to compensate. It has recently been reaffirmed once again that compensation should take priority over fines when means are limited. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been rather hard in his condemnation of the scheme. Much more money has been going into the scheme year on year, and more people are being dealt with. It is not right to suggest that the scheme is not playing a large part in properly compensating victims.

Mr. Corbett: Why have the Minister and his Department restricted the numbers who can seek compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?

Mr. Mellor: The scheme has always had a lower limit, which has to be increased in line with inflation. That is a commonsense approach. It is important that there should be a lower limit, to keep the administration of the scheme speedy and to ensure that it focuses on those who suffer most from crimes of violence.

Mr. Ryman: Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties faced by the victims of violent crime is that they often do not know their statutory rights unless they are specifically informed of them by the officer in charge of the case at the end of the trial, and are specifically told of their rights for claiming compensation? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that victims of crime are told by the officer in charge of the case of their rights to apply for compensation?

Mr. Mellor: Part of the fresh review of the treatment of victims will be to ensure that victims are properly informed of their rights. Whether the police or others should do that is a matter for discussion. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a valuable suggestion.

Mr. Alexander: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the present scope of the scheme in terms of the crimes that are covered by reparation in the sentencing of offenders? Will he remind the House more precisely of that scope?

Mr. Mellor: Reparation in the terms in which my right hon. and learned Friend was talking in his important speech a few weeks ago is not tied to any particular offence. It can take place immediately after the offence, before the decision to prosecute has been taken. That may determine whether it is in the public interest that a prosecution should go forward in a minor offence. Under their existing powers the courts can ensure that direct reparation takes place in any case by, for example, deferring sentence for six months to ensure that promises that are made to make reparation are kept. The sentence of the court can be made dependent on the honouring of that promise. The courts have that option as well as being able to make conventional compensation orders.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that many of us who have argued for years for more concern to be shown to victims welcome the Home Secretary's recent conversion to


that cause? May I draw to the Minister's attention the recent report by the all-party penal affairs group, called "New Deal for Victims" and commend it to him, as it formed the basis of the speech made some time ago by the Home Secretary? May I urge upon the Minister the need to convert his fine words about victims into specific and direct action?

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman must couch what is really a welcome for all that we are doing in rather tendentious language, but even a half-hearted welcome is a step in the right direction. It is not true that we have only recently been converted, as our concern for victims has been a constant theme in our policy. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made his speech before the report of the all-party group was published.
It is a happy fact that the two groups are going along together and, in so far as that makes it more difficult for the hon. Gentleman to score cheap points, it is to be welcomed.

Sunday Trading Laws

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has had from local authorities about Sunday trading laws.

Mr. Mellor: The committee of inquiry that my right hon. and learned Friend has set up to consider what changes are needed in the Shops Act has received evidence from four local authority associations, and from 22 local authorities. He has passed to the committee the letters that he has received from a further six local authorities.

Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain aspects of the Sunday trading laws are the object of widespread ridicule and that the law is ignored by many and respected by relatively few?

Mr. Skinner: Oh! Not just miners, then.

Mr. Favell: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that legislation will be introduced next Session and, in the meantime, will he advise local authorities such as Stockport, in my constituency, when and in what circumstances the law should be implemented?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has a very real point. I made it clear to the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) introduced his private Member's Bill at the end of the previous Parliament that the law on Sunday trading was in tatters and in grave need of reform. That is why the committee of inquiry was set up.
I remind my hon. Friend that the committee's remit is not to consider whether changes should be made in Sunday trading laws, but what changes should be made. Everyone agrees that the law should be changed. It is difficult, however, to achieve a consensus on what those changes should be.

Mr. Speed: Does my hon. Friend realise that local authorities have real difficulties in deciding whether to prosecute? Will he give an assurance that legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the committee of inquiry has reported?

Mr. Mellor: As my hon. Friend knows, unfortunately it does not lie in my mouth to promise legislation. All that I can say is that I am firmly convinced that the law on

Sunday trading must be modernised. I hope that as a result of the committee's report a consensus will develop behind the changes that should be made. I hope that that will go further than the scrappy debate on the private Member's Bill, which revealed no consensus at all.

Mr. Pavitt: I appreciate that the Minister has seen evidence from the local authorities, but has he taken full cognisance of evidence from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the non-party Retail Consortium? Will he take that evidence fully into account when legislation is being prepared?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman knows well that we are taking into account evidence submitted by those groups, so much so that Mr. Flood of USDAW is one of the assessors on the Committee. Plainly, the view of the shopworkers is an important factor and has proved to be one of the difficulties in making the changes that many think should be made.

Breathalyser Tests

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received since December 1983 about the operation of the law relating to the stopping of motorists by the police and taking breathalyser tests.

Mr. Hurd: Since 1 December 1983 we have received 32 representations about the powers of the police to stop motor vehicles and to require breath tests and a further 68 letters commenting on the Lion Intoximeter 3000.

Mr. Townend: Is the Minister aware that in some parts of the country the police are using the Road Traffic Act to carry out a policy of random breathalysing? Is he aware, for example, of an incident just before Christmas in which the police set up what amounted to a road block just outside the town of Hornsea in my constituency and that motorists were stopped regardless of whether they had committed a moving traffic offence? One man was breathalysed as he went for his evening meal and again when he came back. Of the 30 breathalyser tests carried out, only four were found to be positive. Is that not,against the spirit of the Act, as Parliament did not intend to have random breathalysing?

Mr. Hurd: The police have a wide power to stop vehicles under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act. Broadly speaking, an officer can ask a motorist to take a breath test if he has reasonable cause to believe that the driver has caused a moving traffic offence, has alcohol in his body or that the vehicle has been involved in an accident. If my hon. Friend's constituents have complaints that the police went beyond those powers, there is a procedure for investigating such complaints.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many coal mining pickets have been arrested in and around the coalfields since the miners' dispute began; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the maintenance of public order during the coal miners' strike.

Mr. Brittan: Between 14 March and 10 April. 897 people have been arrested for offences connected with the


dispute. These figures available centrally do not distinguish between miners and others or identify the precise place where the arrests were made.
As to the maintenance of public order during the dispute, the position remains substantially as stated in my speech during the debate last Tuesday — until this morning. I understand that this morning large crowds gathered outside the offices of the NUM in Sheffield. The police estimate that there were between 1,500 and 2,000 people, many of whom were noisy, and some of whom were violent. The police were present in large numbers to maintain the peace and to prevent or deal with offences. My latest information is that six police officers were injured and 25 people arrested.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Home Secretary confirm that among the hundreds of pickets who have been arrested, considerable numbers have been arrested for using the word "scab" in relation to other workers? Does that not compare violently with the fact that on Monday night in my constituency, at Cresswell, a 12-year-old girl on her way to an ambulance class, as she was passing the police buses, was told by a policeman to "eff' off? Is it not time that there was some even-handedness from the police and the Home Secretary, and is not the incident to which I have just referred also a breach of the peace?

Mr. Brittan: I have no reason to believe the accuracy of what the hon. Gentleman has said——

Mr. Skinner: Here is the name and address.

Mr. Brittan: —but if he wishes to make an allegation of that kind in a proper form it will, of course, be looked into.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Home Secretary aware of the serious allegation that the police are using agents provocateurs among the strikers, thereby causing unnecessary unrest? As the Home Secretary, should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take some action and take the police in hand?

Mr. Brittan: As I made clear in the debate, there is no evidence whatsoever of what the hon. Gentleman has said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes there is."] In the proper sense of the world, agent provocateur means someone who instigates someone else to commit a criminal offence. That is the proper use of the phrase, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that any policeman has instigated the commission of an offence. The presence of plain clothes police officers is quite a different matter, and the phrase agents provocateurs should not be used if that is what the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Howard: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that in March 1974 the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), as Secretary of State for Employment, commended to the House the rule on picketing laid down by the NUM during the 1974 dispute, which limited the number of pickets in any local situation to six? Would it not help to reduce the conflict between pickets and police in the coalfields in the present dispute if, in 1984, the union were to lay down the same rule?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. If that wise advice, which came from the union itself, were followed today, a lot of the trouble that we have seen would be avoided.

Mr. Ashton: Are not the chief police officers now totally in control of industrial relations? Does the Home Secretary agree that they have decided not to use the Tebbit and Prior Acts but instead to arrest the 900 and to take them to court, thus making the matter sub judice, thereby controlling the picket lines? Surely that is totally against the will of, and resolutions passed by, this House?

Mr. Brittan: It would be difficult to make a more inaccurate statement than that. The so-called Tebbit and Prior laws are not in the hands of the police. They are civil laws, and whether they are used or not is a matter for the civil agencies and not for the police. The question is also strikingly inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman and others said in the debate on Tuesday. On Tuesday, I was accused of being in control. Today, it is the chief of police. Hon. Gentlemen ought to make up their minds.

Mr. Ashton: Who is in control?

Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the consequences of the amount of policing which violent picketing makes necessary is that other areas of the country cannot be policed effectively? Is it not true that any increase in crime which may follow from that must be the direct responsibility of hon. Members on the Labour Benches?

Mr. Brittan: There is no doubt at all that the use of large numbers of police in this dispute has imposed a strain upon police services, but the areas from which police have moved to the mining areas have been able to meet that strain. Tribute should be paid to the police for ensuring that that is so.

Mr. Barron: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House how many of the alarming number of people who have been arrested and charged during the dispute have been arrested close by the plainclothes policemen who have been infiltrating the picket lines?

Mr. Brittan: That information is not available.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one great problem for the police is that the miners' leaders have made it clear that they will hold the law in contempt? If Scargill and his crew agreed to abide by the law, would not the job of the police be easier, and would not people be able to go about their lives in peace? The situation is not the fault of the police; it is the fault of those who wish to break the law.

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree that the presence of such large numbers of policemen is made necessary entirely by the fact that if they were not present there would be mass disorder and intimidation.

Mr. Kaufman: Who is in control? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain where accountability lies? There is a national reporting centre in New Scotland Yard, for which he is responsible. That control room is controlled as a result of orders given by the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Forty-three police forces are co-ordinated by him without any reference to the elected authorities of the 43 police forces. The president's only accountability appears to be to the executive of the professional association — the trade union—of which he is the temporary president.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the national reporting centre, which he


has visited, is a mechanism whereby the chief officer of police in one county is able to call on assistance from his brethren in other counties. That reporting centre is simply a clearing house for obtaining assistance. The right hon. Gentleman also knows from an answer that I have given that in every case assistance has been given at the request of a chief constable who has asked for it. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the handling of such issues is an operational matter over which the chief constable of the area concerned has control. That is something that was warmly applauded by the House on Tuesday.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss the role of the police during the miners' dispute.

Mr. Brittan: On 27 March, on behalf of his colleagues in England and Wales, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers reported personally to me on the whole range of police operations in relation to the miners' dispute. On 29 March I discused the cost of the operations in Nottinghamshire with members of the police authority. The chief constable was present.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he convey the deep thanks of the House to the Association of Chief Police Officers for the way in which police throughout the country have managed to make it possible for miners who wish to go to work to exercise their right to do so? Will he also convey the sympathy of the House to the 57 police officers injured to date, and, finally, will he look at the cost—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions already.

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the House would like to express its appreciation of the fine job that the police are doing in difficult circumstances. I cannot imagine that it would be in any way a matter of controversy to say that the House would wish to express its sympathy to those police officers who have been injured in what has happened so far.

Mr. Nellist: How often has the civil contingencies committee met to co-ordinate the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers in the national recording centre in the arrest of 900 miners who are attempting to save their jobs and the living standards of their families?

Mr. Brittan: The answer is not once.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that miners who work at the Littleton colliery in my constituency have been in touch with me to ask me to pass on to the Home Secretary their appreciation of the work of the Staffordshire police?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I assure the House that that expression of appreciation is by no means unique.

PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet given by the Amir of Bahrain.

Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents who work at the Littleton colliery will be extremely disappointed at the decision of the National Union of Mineworkers this morning not to hold an immediate national ballot? Is she further aware that the proposal to alter the rule book will be regarded by many people simply as an attempt to coerce out on strike men who, in my constituency, have voted by three to one to carry on working to support their families?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that many miners will be greatly concerned that the chance for a national ballot has been delayed still further.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the fact that a national ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers is now a clearer and closer prospect than it was before today's meeting? Will she accept that it is a much clearer and closer prospect than are ballots for the election of the council to run London in the next few years? Will she address the real issues of the coal mining dispute? She has clearly instructed Mr. MacGregor to run down the coal mining industry in substantial part, regardless of the cost. Does she understand that the price of that strategy for the industry, the communities dependent upon it and for the country is immense? Will she therefore now change that strategy and instruct Mr. MacGregor to do the appropriate thing?

The Prime Minister: I assume that if the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that a national ballot is clearer and closer—that is his phrase—he would have preferred it to have been decided today. Perhaps he will make that clear in his next supplementary question. "Plan for Coal" is as it has always been. The right hon. Gentleman will know that in the 11 years of Labour Government some 300 mines were closed and that in the nine years of Conservative Government 92 have been closed.

Mr. Kinnock: In giving me instructions on ballots, the right hon. Lady is rather in the position of someone in a glasshouse throwing stones. With regard to comparisons of rundown, the fact is that during the Labour Government there were some jobs for redundant miners to go to, whereas there are now none. If she is anxious about cost, does she not realise that the cost of replacing 4 million tonnes of coal is likely to mean the purchase of Australian coal and that even if that resulted in a saving of £120 million, the resulting redundancies would cost £160 million a year, apart from redundancy payments of £300 million over the next couple of years?

The Prime Minister: There have been no compulsory redundancies so far. Redundancy money offered by this Government is more generous than that offered by any Labour Government. Investment in the future for coal mines is far better under this Government than under any Labour Government. Coal mines have a better future under Conservatives than they ever had under Labour.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise that the investment that she is supposed to be sponsoring, of which


she is so proud and which is welcome, relates to production in the 1990s at a few specific, limited sites? The problem is here and now. Will she instruct Mr. MacGregor to alter the pace, scale and method of change in the coal mining industry to ensure its future and save coal mining communities?

The Prime Minister: The Government are ensuring the future. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when a Labour Government invested £800 million a year in coal mines?

Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend this week had the opportunity to read about the incident involving nails stuck in pieces of wood, which were left in various places and designed to cripple horses? Will she condemn that as heartless cruelty? Does she agree that that is not peaceful picketing, but cruel and violent, and justifies the presence of every policeman on the beat to get my constituents to work?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that that happened at one mine. That behaviour is disgraceful and callous.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister immediately consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the tragedy that has overtaken the milk industry in Northern Ireland because of the European Community package? Will she now comment on what the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler)—said when he appeared before the Agriculture Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly about her statement of 3 April in the House:
Clearly, the statement made by the Prime Minister was not in line with the facts; there must have been some misunderstanding.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food secured a special quota for Northern Ireland, consequent upon the extra quota given through the European Community to the Republic of Ireland. It means that the milk industry in Northern Ireland will not be as severely affected as it would otherwise have been. I hope that the announcement about the quotas for separate parts of the United Kingdom will be made shortly.

Dr. Owen: Why did the Government reject the amendment to the Trade Union Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), which would have allowed for trigger ballots when a significant group in any industry wanted a ballot? Is it not clear that the tactics of the national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers are to create such chaos in the union that eventually even moderates will vote for a national strike to unite the union? If a trigger ballot existed, those moderates would have the right to force a ballot and would probably have come out against a strike.

The Prime Minister: Trigger ballots would give rise to many complications and were dealt with during the debate. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to have a ballot as quickly as possible, especially when that facility is in the union's constitution.

Mr. Allan Roberts: When the Prime Minister next sees the Queen—[Interruption.] will she tell the Queen that when she is no longer Prime Minister she does not intend to accept a hereditary peerage? Or did she

reintroduce grossly undemocratic hereditary peerages to guarantee a future for her son when she is no longer Prime Minister? [Interruption.] Will——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roberts: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked one question. That is enough.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted with the previous hereditary peerages that I recommended to Her Majesty.

Mr. Blair: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Blair: The Secretary of State for the Environment, while introducing the paving Bill in the House yesterday, said:
The question of precedent is very important."—[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 411.]
Can the Prime Minister name the precedent for a Bill that abolishes local elections and transfers political control from directly elected local authorities to bodies that are indirectly elected or nominated?

The Prime Minister: Yesterday's debate revolved round the transitional arrangements. It seemed to be agreed by most people in the House that it would be absurd to hold special general elections for a body that would not exist a year later. Therefore, the answer was either to extend the terms of office of those who had been elected beyond the period for which they had been elected, or to put the charge of the functions being transferred into the hands of local councillors whose period of office had not terminated. We took the latter view, which I believe was the correct one. It would have been bad to extend the period of election beyond the term of election of councillors.

Mr. Stanbrook: Does my right hon. Friend find it ironic that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who, more than any individual, was responsible for adding a further tier of government on the backs of the overburdened British people, should object to our removing one?

The Prime Minister: I thought that yesterday's debate was only about the period of transition. In so far as there was a difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and myself, I am sure that I was right.

Mr. Ryman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ryman: Has the Prime Minister seen the report on page two of The Times today, in which the eminent theologian, the Archibishop of York, has pledged support to the NUM in its fight against the National Coal Board's ferocious policy on pit closures? Is she so conceited that she proposes to ignore the advice of even the bishops?

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to tangle with the Archbishop of York. I would say only that unless coal is as cheap and competitive as it can be, many jobs will be lost in other industries.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does not my right hon. Friend find the affectation on the part of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), in setting the pace in the direction of trade union reform, remarkably unconvincing given that, as a member of the Labour Government, supported the illiberal and oppressive trade union and labour relations legislation, including the closed shop? Does she believe that in such matters a complete change of heart is credible, or does she see it as political opportunism on his part?

The Prime Minister: I welcome any change in people's Labour affiliations, and I hope that in time they will change a little more.

York

Mr. Gregory: asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to York.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Gregory: York's citizens will naturally be very disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. As the European Parliament elections will be held in nine weeks' time, will my right hon. Friend stress to the President of the Council of Ministers the importance of placing the EC on a proper financial footing for ever?

The Prime Minister: It is vital, when own resources are at issue, to secure a fair and equitable distribution of the burden of financing the Community. That is the Government's objective, and I shall continue to press it.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Prime Minister aware that Amnesty International—[Interruption]—in York and in other parts of the country has launched an international campaign against torture by Governments? Will she give

full support to this campaign, and will she ensure that the people of York, like the people of the rest of the country, are made aware of her repugnance for any Government who practise torture against their citizens?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to make it perfectly clear that this Government are against any torture practised by Governments or people.

"The Sinking of the Belgrano"

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list the official interviews and assistance given by civil servants and service men to Desmond Rice and Arthur Gavschon, authors of the book, "The Sinking of the Belgrano".

The Prime Minister: No such official interviews or assistance were given to the authors of "The Sinking of the Belgrano" specifically in connection with their book, apart from providing comments on an article in International Defense Review by an Argentine military historian.

Mr. Dalyell: Is General Haig right in asserting that acceptance had been gained from both parties in relation to the Peruvian peace proposals before the Belgrano was sunk? Is the Prime Minister's admirer, General Haig, right?

The Prime Minister: I do not answer for General Haig.

Mr. Faulds: Answer for yourself. It will come out, darling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) does not desist from this behaviour, I shall have to ask him to go, and I should not like to do that just before Easter.

Royal Navy (Guided Weapons)

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the procurement of the next generation of surface-to-surface and surface-to-air guided weapons for the Royal Navy.
For some months we have been conducting a competition for a second generation surface-to-surface guided weapon for the four batch III type 22 frigates and the first eight type 23 frigates. The contenders were British Aerospace's ship-launched Sea Eagle, McDonnell Douglas's ship-launched Harpoon, Aerospatiale's Exocet MM40, and versions of Otomat from Oto Melara and Matra. The thorough-going evaluation of these contenders has taken into account performance, cost and timescale considerations, as well as industrial and employment factors.
The competition has been keen and of considerable benefit in assuring value for money. Following the submission of "best and final" offers from the competing contractors the outcome is clear. Having taken all relevant factors into account, the Government have concluded that the best choice on both operational and cost grounds is the McDonnell Douglas Harpoon; a proven system, which has a 100 per cent. success rate in over 200 firings since 1978, and variants of which are already in service with the Royal Navy and RAF.
Subject to agreement with the company on contractual terms and conditions, we will place a fixed price contract worth some £130 million for Harpoon missiles and associated ship systems for the batch III type 22 and the type 23 frigates. The total value of the programme is of the order of £200 million.
I recognise that there will be disappointment that we have decided not to buy British for this item of Royal Navy equipment. However, the United Kingdom's position with regard to the high technology involved in advanced missiles has been preserved by our earlier decisions to purchase ALARM and air-launched Sea Eagle from British Aerospace. I take this opportunity of reaffirming the Ministry of Defence's commitment to air-launched Sea Eagle and also of reminding the House that 95p in the MOD's procurement £ is spent in this country.
The employment implications of the various options have been an important consideration in our decision. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that McDonnell Douglas has undertaken to provide offset work for British industry to the value of 130 per cent. of the cost of the Harpoon order, of which half will be in areas of high technology and 30 per cent. on the Harpoon programme itself.
McDonnell Douglas's track record on offset is excellent, and its undertaking will be incorporated in the contract. Over the past seven years, it has placed well over £300 million worth of contracts in the United Kingdom at all levels of industry and on sub-Harpoon its offset eventually totalled one and a half times the purchase price. Another important consideration was the need to reduce as far as possible uncertainties caused by future exchange rate fluctuations. In this respect we have achieved an agreement with McDonnell Douglas that 30 per cent. of the value of the contract will be payable in sterling.
The Government are convinced that this decision is right for the Royal Navy and right for the taxpayer, and is also entirely satisfactory in employment terms for British industry.
In addition, I am also glad to be able to inform the House that today we have authorised the placing of a firm contract with British Aerospace for the full development and initial production—[Interruption.] The House should listen to the next part of my statement. I shall read the beginning of the paragraph again. In addition, we have authorised the placing of a firm contract with British Aerospace for the full development and initial production of the vertically-launched version of the Sea Wolf surface-to-air missile for the Royal Navy's type 23 frigates. This important programme will ensure that Sea Wolf keeps its substantial lead over all its international competitors, and will guarantee that the type 23 frigates have the most modern, versatile and devastating point defence missile system available. This is a programme of major importance for the Royal Navy and British industry. The initial order alone is worth some £250 million. Taken alongside the substantial order that we placed some weeks ago for the third main production order for conventionally-launched Sea Wolf this order will sustain the momentum of the programme and—not least—will sustain job opportunities at British Aerospace and its subcontractors.
The Royal Navy has today acquired two highly effective modern systems which will greatly enhance operational effectiveness.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: This would have been an interesting statement had we not heard it first on ITN and read it this morning in the Daily Mail. Even allowing for yesterday's difficulties, which I understand, I should like to know whether this leak will come under the criteria laid down by the Secretary of State for examining leaks from the Ministry of Defence or whether it is just one of those softening up blows for British industry to make it accept what has happened.
This is the second major blow for British Aerospace in the past three weeks. Following the decision on the basic jet trainer, which is to go to a foreign competitor, the Sea Eagle is being sacrificed to our American competitors, and against all the criteria laid down by the Minister of State when he was writing about these matters. He said then that when placing orders we should take into account the possbile deterioration in the value of the pound, national consumption and local infrastructure, and the problems of break-up in British design teams and their leadership. On all those criteria, it is impossible to justify the decisions that have been taken.
I have a number of specific questions on the statement. The Minister spoke about a £130 million order for Harpoon, of which 30 per cent. is to be at a fixed price. 'Therefore, £40 million to £42 million of it is to be at a fixed price. What about the other 70 per cent.? Is that to be subject to the fluctuations of the market and likely, particularly in the light of recent history, to be more expensive to us?
Secondly, how can the hon. Gentleman justify this decision against the history of the trade between the United States and the United Kingdom in defence manufacture, which is over 2 to 1 in favour of the United States, excluding Trident? We are giving more to the United States in this matter, excluding the arrangements that we


have been trying to make with our European NATO colleagues for the development of systems on this side of the Atlantic.
Coming to the question of the local employment problems, can the Minister say that McDonnell Douglas can guarantee the same number of man-hours of employment as British Aerospace felt that it could? Is it able to guarantee that there will be the same amount of high technology and its development in this country as British Aerospace was able to guarantee? Is it not a fact that the 70 per cent. of this contract which is not to be in high technology will be merely in tin-bashing and Meccano work and have nothing whatsoever to do with the development of these areas in British industry?
Finally, is not the whole of the latter half of the statement with regard to Sea Wolf purely and simply a sop to try to satisfy Tory Back-Bench Members because Sea Wolf has already proved its value against Exocet in trials a month or more ago? To throw this in as a biscuit to satisfy the dogs behind him does not disguise the fact that this decision is a gross betrayal of British industry, British technology and British jobs.

Mr. Pattie: It is quite clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he is having great difficulty in finding suitable targets. The suggestion that a full-scale development order of £250 million is a sop is a sign of the hon. Gentleman's scale of values. If that is a sop, I should like to know what he considers to be a major order.
The hon. Gentleman talked about employment. There are many companies in this country—I could cite many of them—which are part of the Harpoon programme and which will be extremely pleased by this decision, and also by the ability to participate in other McDonnell Douglas programmes, whether in advanced aeroplanes like the FAT, head-up displays, and other such things. All of this information can be made freely available to the House and to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the exchange rate in terms of it being 2 to 1 against the United Kingdom. I remind him that when the Government came into office in May 1979 the exchange rate was 4 to 1. Since then we have had the improvement that I have described, and to characterise this agreement in the terms used by the hon. Gentleman is nothing less than a travesty of the truth.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important consideration is that the Royal Navy should have the finest available equipment? Can he assure us that as a result of the decision that he has just announced it will have? Another consideration is inter-operability with our NATO allies. Would he say a word or two concerning that?

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend because, obviously, the prime consideration has to be whether this is equipment which the Royal Navy requires, whether it will meet its requirements, and whether it is a system that the Royal Navy feels will be fully effective in meeting its needs. As I said in my statement, this is a highly mature system which has had over 200 successful firings since 1978. The offer that we were made was one that we could not afford to ignore. Regarding inter-operability, the Harpoon system is used widely by other navies, and it will certainly help us in that regard.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Can the Minister quantify the financial range of the final offers to which he referred? Is it the case that the operational difference between Harpoon and Sea Eagle was not very great? Does he really think that it is wise, in the long term, to become so dependent upon the United States both in major weapon systems and in the related research and development capacities?

Mr. Pattie: As I said a moment ago, the system has had more than 200 firings as opposed to the British Aerospace contender, which is still under consideration, let alone having any hardware. Therefore, there is hardly a fair comparison. The point about advanced technology is important, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that we take it very seriously. That was precisely the consideration that we had in mind when we took the ALARM decision last summer. It is in the homing head that it is important that Britain should retain such very advanced technology. Given that we had that on ALARM and that we had the air-launched Sea Eagle, the w ay was then open, provided that we got a satisfactory offer, for us to secure Harpoon and obtain the advantage that I have described.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement will be particularly disappointing to my constituents in Bolton, where an additional 200 jobs would have been created, in some measure making up for the loss of 1,000 engineering jobs at the nearby railway works?

Mr. Pattie: Yes; but I understand that in my hon. Friend's part of the country there are newspaper headlines extolling the advantages to companies such as Lucas in Burnley of the subcontract work that is likely to accrue to them from the Harpoon decision.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that his opposite number in Washington could not have got such a statement past his House Appropriations Committee, whose current protection of American jobs is now the guiding principle of American procurement policy? Given the Minister's current anxieties about the Hawk programme, the ejector seat, the 81 mm mortar and the combat support boat, and that he has admitted that competition between those two fine systems was keen, why did he not make the net impact on British jobs the determining factor?

Mr. Pattie: That is precisely what we took into account. The hon. Gentleman has drawn on his considerable knowledge, but, with respect, it is not totally up to date. He described me as having anxieties about hawk and the VTX programme that the United States navy has. However, I have no anxieties about that programme at the present time. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the 81 mm mortar and the combat support boat. I am fully aware of the developments, and I go to Washington as frequently as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will allow me to.
I am also fully aware of the protectionist tendencies in the United States of America. However, the United States is also fully aware of what it sees as similar tendencies in the United Kingdom; tendencies that it thought—I think wrongly—that it detected at the time that we made the ALARM decision last year. I believe that that decision has since been vindicated by subsequent events.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is not an accurate or correct reading of the present situation.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the eloquent way that he has sugar-coated the bitter pill about ship-launched Sea Eagle? Does he agree that it demonstrates a profound problem about defence procurement? I refer to the fact that four companies in four countries have been bidding for the same contract, and that they have all involved themselves in a great deal of research and development which they will not necessarily recoup. Does my hon. Friend have any plans for ensuring that within NATO companies in different countries work together to produce a commonality of weapons systems, and weapons systems that will be cheaper?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend's point is extremely well made, because it takes us away from the passion of the day, if I may so put it. However, the only way of resolving that problem is to harmonise the research and development programme sufficiently early so that such requirements can be harmonised then. Work is in hand on that, but it remains a rather long-term goal.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In view of Shorts' excellent record of co-operation with Boeing and its expertise in missiles, will there be scope for Shorts in the offset arrangements promised by McDonnell Douglas?

Mr. Pattie: There will be scope for an excellent company such as Shorts to make bids in a variety of areas. I must make it clear that McDonnell Douglas is making an offset commitment up to a certain percentage, as I have said. It is not saying that it will automatically hand over contract A, B or C to a variety of different companies. The commitment is absolute and it remains until it has been met, but the British companies concerned will have to bid for specific items on the contract.

Mr. John Farr: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has endeavoured to give a balanced package to the House, but there will be disappointment that the order will be for Harpoon. Will he assure the House that he has carefully taken into account the fantastic amount of money that the Government are spending on the Trident programme—over £15,000 million spread over eight years—a large part of which is on components of American origin?

Mr. Pattie: I think that my hon. Friend misquoted the figure. We are talking about a figure slightly in excess of £8 billion over the lifetime of the Trident programme. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to remind the House that 55 per cent. of the Trident programme will be spent in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend has expressed concern in the past that a decision of this sort might be tantamount to turning our back on European procurement. I am pleased to be able to tell him and the House that in the past few days we have signed an agreement with the French Government for co-operation on the RTM322 helicopter engine which will be important for both nations.

Mr. David Young: Is the Minister aware that my constituents, like myself, will see the statement as a sell-out by the Government to American interests? Is he also aware that it makes a mockery of the

Conservative party's claim not only to look after Britain's defence but to make Britain independent of other countries? Is he further aware that Hawker Siddeley argued that with this contract will go the technology for the next generation of weapons? What additional cost will attend the air-launched and helicopter-launched versions of the missile since he is now cutting out the third option which would have meant the use of a complete family of weapons?

Mr. Pattie: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is making a speech that he had ready in case we chose HARM last June, when he was disappointed to find that he had to welcome the Government's decision to buy ALARM. I completely repudiate his suggestion that this is a betrayal or a sell-out. This is the most effective use of the defence budget once we are satisfied that the technology base has been secured, and the homing head, which is an important part of any missile system. I should like to hear who has claimed that the technology for the next generation is being repudiated, because that is untrue.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Knowing my interest, my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a good news, bad news statement, but it would be churlish not to accept the value of what he had to say about vertical-launched Sea Wolf today. What part of the 130 per cent. of the McDonnell Douglas offset which he described will be related to the purchase of Harpoon? As I understood it, he said that McDonnell Douglas could place up to 130 per cent. in value, including other work unrelated to Harpoon. May I have a breakdown of that? Does he anticipate any further announcemennts which would encourage British Aerospace and other British defence manufacturing industries in the near future?

Mr. Pattie: The figure that my hon. Friend is asking for is 30 per cent. Without anticipating too much, it is confidently expected that the United States navy will announce that it has chosen the Marconi ICS3 system for an important VHF band communications contract.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that the success of the air-launched Sea Eagle depended quite a lot on having the naval contract as well? Does he also agree that the price has been overloaded, particularly with a pound that was over valued, and when it includes, I understand, a VAT element of £5 million? Has he not underplayed the technology aspect? Obviously we cannot have British technology being thrown away in this way. Is the hon. Gentleman happy that 10,000 jobs could be at risk? Would it not have been better had he stood up for British interests instead of acting as a Washington poodle?

Mr. Pattie: Without personalising matters too much, those in Washington who have had to do battle with me in the past on other British systems would be somewhat amused to hear me described in those terms. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might care to look at the official record on that score.
I have covered in answer to earlier questions most of the points that he raised. The air-launched Sea Eagle programme was well and truly launched and established in technology terms before the sea-launched version was added, so there is no question of saying that the decision against the ship-to-ship version of Sea Eagle is harmful to the air-launched version.
I again repudiate the suggestion about 10,000 jobs being at risk. We are talking about many jobs being safeguarded and new job opportunities being created.

Mr. Keith Speed: Will my hon. Friend say unequivocally which was the Navy's preferred missile? Is he thinking in terms of putting Harpoon aboard smaller craft to give them an effective long-range punch, thus achieving a cost-effective solution?

Mr. Pattie: The Navy's preferred solution was for Harpoon, on the grounds that I described in my statement. It is certainly a matter for close consideration whether we should arm the vessels of which he spoke with a system of this sort, because in that way we would greatly enhance their operational effectiveness.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister asked who would disagree with his statement. He must be aware of those who disagree with him. My colleagues in AUEW TASS met the Minister on Monday and made clear to him the mistake that he would be making if he opted for Harpoon. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), I should like to know how the Minister can justify to the technologists, designers and researchers in the aerospace and associated industries why, unlike the Americans, who stand up for their industry, he fails regularly to do that. He has certainly failed to do it in this case by removing an important link with export orders. That is the effect of deciding on Harpoon rather than ship-launched Eagle.

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman's point about_ technology does not stand up. If he took the opportunity to talk with the design teams in the factories concerned——

Mr. Ross: I do; they are my colleagues.

Mr. Pattie: They would like to have every order that is going, no matter what degree of overloading that might produce. The hon. Gentleman asked me about technology and I am answering that point. In the air-launched Sea Eagle, in the ALARM programme and in the vertically-launched Sea Wolf, we have, in all the vital companies that are involved in this technology, totally safeguarded the technology that we need.

Mr. Robert Atkins: While regretting that British Aerospace has not got the contract for Sea Eagle, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that it is hardly a sell-out in view of the toughly negotiated offset agreement at which he has arrived, and particularly in view of his reputation and that of the Secretary of State in reducing the ratio since we came to office from 4:1 to 2:1 in the purchase of equipment? While regretting that the contract has not gone to British Aerospace, is it not a fact that we cannot win them all?

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. It is a case of making the most sensible use of our very straitened defence resources and using our technology base in this country. My right hon. Friend and I would need to be satisfied in a case such as this that all the considerations that would, naturally, concern all parts of the House have been fully met. We are absolutely confident that they have been in this case, and that is why we have taken this decision.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that, although we may regret this decision, there are nevertheless many aerospace high technology firms

throughout Britain, such as Normal Aire Garratt in my constituency, which will welcome the commitments which he has obtained on the high technology content in the offset? Is he aware, however, that there have been in the past far too many instances where high technology contracts awarded to British firms have been frustrated because the American Government have refused to issue export licences for the technology? How can he assure the House that that obstacle will not frustrate the high technology content in this offset deal?

Mr. Pattie: We shall maintain the closest possible monitoring of the arrangement, as we do with all such arrangements. We have had no problems with previous arrangements with McDonnell Douglas, and we see no reason to doubt future arrangements. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is good enough to recognise the advantage that will accrue to Normal Aire Garrett—a company in his constituency — almost certainly on the F18 programme.

Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement today will be most warmly welcomed, especially in relation to vertical-launched Sea Wolf? Will he explain to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and other Opposition Members that the offset arrangement that my hon. Friend has achieved will potentially provide for more British jobs than would otherwise have been the case? Was not one of the factors in his choice in favour of Harpoon that the Royal Navy initially set about acquiring Harpoon in its sub-Harpoon version in the 1970s? Under which Government did that happen?

Mr. Pattie: It is not a question only of under which Government that happened, but under which Minister. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) was Minister with responsibility for the Navy at that time. In the words used today, the Labour Government sold out Britain's interest through the original memorandum of understanding which brought in Harpoon to the British weaponry system. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Attercliffe because it was a perfectly good weapon. It was the start of a family, and we are glad to add the work that he did.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the contract be a fixed price contract? What proposals does the Minister have to gain insight into the research and development lying behind the missile system of McDonnell Douglas? Are not the Americans all too willing to give us the downstream element of production while retaining the research and development?
How will the Minister monitor the subcontract work allocated by McDonnell Douglas to ensure that we maximise the benefit to the United Kingdom economy?

Mr. Pattie: It is a fixed price contract. We shall monitor the subcontract and offset performances in the way that we always do, with a special team. We shall require McDonnell Douglas to give frequent reports on how the contracts are moving and how they are let.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about downstream improvements. It is an essential term of the contract, which we have secured in dealing direct with the company, that all future improvements on the missile system will be made available to the Royal Navy.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of the statement to hon. Members and their constituents, but I must protect the business of the House. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.15 pm and hope that by that time every hon. Member who has been rising to ask a question will have been called.

Mr. Timothy Wood: Although I welcome the decision about the Sea Wolf missile, is my hon. Friend aware that I regret the decision on the sea-launched Sea Eagle? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the MOD makes it clear to others considering variants of the Sea Eagle missile that the decision in no way shows any lack of confidence in the programme?
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) in expressing continuing concern about high technology development and defence contracts within Europe. Is there not always a danger of looking at our systems, saying that they are not good enough and looking to the United States? In the long run, that will be bad for Europe.

Mr. Pattie: I agree with my hon. Friend's last point. One of our prime considerations has been the need to have the system ready for the ships that I described in my statement at the precise moment that those ships are available and required. The time that it would have taken for British Aerospace to have its system ready, fully tried, proved and tested would have been so late that the Royal Navy felt that it would be to its disadvantage to wait. That does not reflect adversely on the ability of the British Aerospace system; it is a matter of when the system will be available.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Almost as a throwaway in answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), the Minister referred to subcontractors who, he hoped, would benefit. Does not the track record of McDonnell Douglas show that it may go to some British subcontractors for the simple operations but for the sophisticated high technology operations it will, as always, go to America? Will not Britain lose out? With all the cash available for the electrical guidance systems, how about a little money for proper circuits in the Falklands hospital?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman's last point is not for me. The offset record of McDonnell Douglas, which I described to the House in overall terms, includes a significant proportion of high technology work. The United States knows perfectly well that we are not satisfied with what is colloquially known as tin bashing. We require not only satisfactory assurances but the award of specific high technology elements. As I have said, 50 per cent. of the programme will be spent in the United States on high technology items. That is a satisfactory agreement.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: My constituents who work at British Aerospace will obviously welcome the decision about Sea Wolf, but they will be disappointed about Sea Eagle. What effect does my hon. Friend think his disappointing statement will have on potential export orders for Sea Eagle?

Mr. Pattie: Potential customers for the ship-to-ship Sea Eagle will ask whether it is in service for the Royal Navy, and will be told that it is not. They will also be told the reasons for that. British Aerospace will have to decide whether it wants to commit a significant part of its private

venture money to developing that part of the family when there are other parts of the family with better export potential.

Mr. Ken Eastham: How can the Minister be sure that his statement will not affect many hundreds of engineering jobs in the aerospace industry throughout the country? Is he aware that British Aerospace has calculated that the decision will affect £500 million worth of potential exports?

Mr. Pattie: That is the sort of statement that I would expect any company to make in such a position. There is a great deal of potential work on the Harpoon programme. I have already spoken about Lucas Aerospace in Burnley, the royal ordnance factories in Particroft and Chorley, Ferranti in Oldham—not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency—and the Reliance Gear company in Huddersfield.
The House may not appreciate that the offset opportunities are available for McDonnell Douglas to offer to British industry on other McDonnell Douglas programmes. Therefore, we are talking about the possibility of Ferranti, Edinburgh, having a potential value order on F18 displays of 140 million dollars. That cannot be bad news for engineers in Manchester.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that a decision in favour of vertically-launched Sea Wolf would have been taken in the near future anyway, and should be considered separately from the disappointing remainder of his statement? Will he reassure the House that the overall employment effects of his statement — excluding Sea Wolf — are still as valuable as he described? Will he offer that reassurance to my constituents at Filton, who are concerned that their long-term job prospects are at risk?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend's constituents need not see the decision in that light because the loading factors in British Aerospace and Marconi are such that, following the ALARM decision and other decisions on the regular version of Sea Wolf, major orders were placed some weeks ago. My hon. Friend suggested that we had deliberately held back the decison to put the two items together. It was felt that it was important for the House to consider the missile availability in relation to the Royal Navy. It was important for my hon. Friend and his constituents to consider that reason.

Mr. Peter Pike: I appreciate the Government's co-operative decision. Obviously, the decision will be welcomed by Lucas Aerospace in Burnley and Burnley Engineering Products. Lucas Aerospace is the largest single employer in Burnley. Will the Minister be more specific about the net effect of the decision on jobs? The overriding factor to be considered must be the total number of jobs. I do not like technology to be lost. At the end of the day, we should preserve technology—Lucas Aerospace is a high technology firm—and provide jobs.

Mr. Pattie: I have said already that there is no reason why there should be any net loss of jobs—the reverse is the case. We have already safeguarded the position of technology, and I shall not weary the House by giving the reasons again. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Some years ago, I met several shop stewards from Lucas Aerospace. I know that they will welcome the possible involvement of their company.


The provision of actuators, canisters and sustainer motors for Harpoons will certainly sustain job opportunities in that company.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the research and development invested by his Department and British Aerospace in air-launched Sea Eagles will not be thrown away by this decision and that the family of missiles, which should eventually result in a land-launched Sea Eagle, will not be prejudiced by the decision?

Mr. Pattie: I agree with my hon. Friend. The technology relevant to air-launched Sea Eagles will, by definition, obviously continue. We are happy to discuss any further developments that British Aerospace wishes to discuss with the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I recall my hon. Friend's visit last year, at my request, to Rose Forgrove, Gainsborough manufacturers of the lightweight Sea Wolf launcher system. Does my hon. Friend recall that Rose Forgrove is a subcontractor of British Aerospace, and will therefore benefit from the decision? Is he satisfied that there is sufficient capacity at the royal dockyards to ensure that a rapid order is forthcoming?

Mr. Pattie: I believe my hon. Friend will understand that I shall need to look into the possibilities for Rose Forgrove. I remember the visit that I made to my hon. Friend's constituency and that company. The Navy is now actively bringing forward a measure, which is close to his constituents' hearts—the use of Sea Wolf in the Sea Cat launchers. I hope that that programme will come forward soon.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend recognise that, although my constituents will welcome his statements about the Sea Wolf, they will be concerned at the damage caused to the long-term maintenance of highly skilled design teams? Will he assure us that, as Harpoon is an off-the-shelf weapon, in the long run he will consider the introduction of the ship-launched Sea Eagle to the Royal Navy?

Mr. Pattie: No options for the future are closed. I have already answered several questions on the subject of design teams, and we are confident that the design capability is more than safeguarded by the decisions we have already taken.

Mr. David Maclean: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is disappointing that a British firm did not win the competition? Will he confirm that it is an overriding priority for the Ministry of Defence that the lives of British service men are protected by the best weapons systems available, and that those systems will be installed as soon as possible from whatever part of the world they come?

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously I agree with him.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although one part of British Aerospace will be disappointed at the decision, another part will be delighted that its programme is to continue? Will he confirm that British Avionics and British Electronics, which are high technology electronics firms, are world leaders and that this programme does not change that?

Will he confirm that the Ministry of Defence is required to buy within a fixed budget and, by buying well, more money can be spent on other items?

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him.

Mr. Neil Thorne: What steps will be taken in these cases to ensure that the supply lines in a potential future conflict are clear and that there will be no possible hold-up because of some Falkland Islands type conflict, which prevents us from receiving materials or weapons that would be essential to the successful outcome?

Mr. Pattie: That depends almost entirely on the Royal Navy ensuring that it has an adequate supply of missiles and launchers, and I have no doubt that that will be the case.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Is my hon. Friend prepared to tell us the chances of switching to the British system when it is available? If the case for buying the American system is merely that it is available now, could we not switch to the British system when it becomes available?

Mr. Pattie: I do not wish to give the impression that that was the only reason for the decision. A considerable factor in making the decision is that the American system is available now and has been in existence since 1978. We cannot afford to run two systems, with one following behind the other. If British Aerospace wanted to take the unlikely step of funding a particular development on its own, that would be relevant to the export markets. I do not believe that that step is likely.

Mr. McNamara: Is it not evident from the questions asked of the Minister of State that the majority of hon. Members are of the opinion that British defence is best left in British hands, and that we should use the system we have the ability to produce?
The Minister said that he had been in the United States a long time and that the companies got to know his opinion. Certainly they did—the Minister is a pushover. That is evident from this decision. That has happened throughout the discussions. I refer especially to the hon. Gentleman's comment about my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). More ships have come into commission and more keels were laid under my hon. Friend's recommendations than under this Government. British Aerospace pointed out that it could have provided the items at a fixed price, met the Navy's delivery time and done all that was required. In those circumstances, why was the Minister not prepared to take British Aerospace at its word?
We are in an impossible position because 45 per cent. of the cost of the Trident programme and 30 per cent. of the cost of Harpoon will be offset in the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely from where we shall get these contracts? To say that McDonnell Douglas is willing to look around is no guarantee that jobs will be provided and that there will be a high technology input. That is important to the British defence industry.
What guarantee do we have that McDonnell Douglas will make 30 per cent. of high technology purchases in the United Kingdom? How will that occur, against the background of the American Administration's attitude


towards high technology contracts in western Europe and the possibility that some part of the knowledge may eventually go to CONCOM.
Does not the hon. Gentleman's statement make a nonsense of the Prime Minister's demand that the British defence industry should produce a family of weapons capable of supplying our defence forces and being exported? The Minister of State and the Secetary of State have denied all those aspects. There is no doubt that that is why the Prime Minister waited until today to send a answer to the letter I sent her on that point. A fortnight ago, she had refused to reply.

Mr. Pattie: We have never said that we would buy British regardless of costs and operational considerations, even though we have said repeatedly that 95 per cent. of the British procurement budget is spent in Britain. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the securing of offset agreements from McDonnell Douglas are a bit rich from a member of a party which supported a Government who in 1976 initiated the original memorandum of understanding, which was based on sub-Harpoon from McDonnell Douglas and on the TOW missile from Hughes.

Mr. Duffy: indicated dissent.

Mr. Pattie: I jog the memory of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on the Martel system, which I seem to recall was chosen and selected from the French at a time when a competitor existed in Britain. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suffering from a bout of amnesia.
We shall monitor the offset arrangements in the same way in which successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have managed such arrangements in the past. I have told the House of the achievements of McDonnell Douglas in such matters in the past, and there is no need to repeat them again.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the export of goods used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.
The House will know that a tragic war — the Gulf war — is being waged between Iraq and Iran. This tragedy is distressing because of the number of lives that are being lost daily in the conflict. It is even more distressing because there is evidence that chemical weapons are being deployed. Those who have investigated the allegations have concluded that Iraq has been using chemical weapons and that Iranians have been killed by chemical or biological weapons. The matter, therefore, is urgent.
The matter is specific because the Government have administrative machinery available to them to preclude the export of equipment or substances that can be used directly or indirectly to produce chemical weapons. In spite of that machinery, there is evidence that goods are being exported from Britain to Iraq which could potentially be used for the manufacture of chemical weapons. If that is happening, the United Kingdom Government, wittingly or unwittingly, is assisting and enabling Iraq to have the capacity to acquire chemical weapons.
The matter is urgent because until there is an effective ban it is possible that such goods will be exported from Britain. I was pleased to read today that the Minister for Trade has banned under the Export of Goods Control (Amendment) No. 6 Order the export of a series of chemicals which have been, or could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons. The Government must be congratulated to that extent and the ban is to be welcomed as far as it goes.
I have evidence that goods such as chemical protection kits and water pumps that could be used in industrial processes for producing these horrific weapons are still being exported. The ban on chemicals is welcome but it is important that the House considers urgently the need to extend the ban from chemicals to the goods that are used in the manufacturing processes.
I consider this matter to be specific, urgent and important. The credibility of the United Kingdom is at stake for it is a matter of international concern. Even at this 11th hour, shortly before the Easter recess, I apply for a specific Adjournment debate forthwith on this important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the export of goods used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be an appropriate one for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1984.
2. Town and Country Planning Act 1984.
3. Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984.
4. Telecommunications Act 1984.
5. Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Act 1984.
6. London Docklands Railway Act 1984.
7. Standard Chartered Bank Act 1984.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the effect of European Community policies on Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Major.]

Orders of the Day — Housing and Building Control Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): The House will wish to know that Mr. Speaker has selected the two Government manuscript amendments to Lords amendment No. 190. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

Ordered,
That Lords Amendment No. 86 to the Housing and Building Control Bill be considered before all other Lords Amendments to that Bill.—[Sir George Young.]

New Clause

PROVISIONS AS RESPECTS CERTAIN TENANTS OF CHARITABLE HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 86, after the clause last inserted insert the following new clause—
.—(1) This section applies to any tenant of a publicly funded dwelling-house who, but for subsection (1) or (2)(a) of section 2 of the 1980 Act (exception for cases where landlord is a charitable housing association etc.), would have the right to buy; and a dwelling-house is publicly funded for the purposes of this section if housing association grant has been paid under section 29 of the 1974 Act in respect of a project which included—

(a) the acquisition of the dwelling-house;
(b) the acquisition of a building and the provision of the dwelling-house by means of the conversion of that building; or
(c) the acquisition of land and the construction of the dwelling-house on that land.
(2) The Secretary of State may pay housing association grant under section 29 of the 1974 Act to an association registered under section 13 of that Act in cases where the association first acquires a dwelling-House and then disposes of it at a discount to a tenant to whom this section applies.
(3) Where an association registered under section 13 of the 1974 Act contracts for the acquisition of a dwelling-house and, without taking the conveyance, grant or assignment, disposes of its interest to a tenant to whom this section applies, subsection (2) above and the following provisions, namely—

(a) section 122 of the 1980 Act and sections 104B(2) to (9) and 104C of the 1957 Act as applied by that section (disposals by housing associations);
(b) Part II of Schedule 1A to the 1980 Act (qualification and discount);
(c) section 2 of the 1974 Act (consent of Housing Corporation to disposals); and
(d) section 9(2) of that Act (loans by Housing Corporation),
shall have effect as if the association first acquired the dwelling-house and then disposed of it to that tenant.
(4) A housing association which is a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 may have among its objects that of effecting transactions falling within subsection (2) above without preventing the association being or, as the case may be, remaining registered under section 13 of the 1974 Act.
(5) In this section "dwelling-house" includes a house within the meaning of the 1957 Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment (a), line 35, leave out subsection (4) and insert—


'(4) Section 13 of the 1974 Act shall have effect as if the additional purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (3) of that section included the purpose or object of effecting transactions falling within subsection (2) above.'.
Consequential amendment No. 1, in schedule 10, page 88, line 19, at end insert—
' In subsection (1) of section 127 of that Act (registration of housing associations) for the words from the beginning to "its objects" there shall be substituted the words "Section 13 of the 1974 Act (the register of housing associations) shall have effect as if the additional purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (3) of that section included" and the words from "without" onwards shall be omitted.'.
Consequential amendment No. 2, in schedule 11, page 90, line 47, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 127(1), the words from "without" onwards.'.
Privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 86.

Sir George Young: The amendment will help the one group of people who rent homes that were built with public funds who are currently denied the right to buy because of the charitable status of their landlord. The Government make no secret of the fact that they would have liked such tenants to enjoy the right to buy on the same basis as other public sector tenants. That was the Government's original intention. However, we recognise the strong feelings that our proposals aroused in the housing association movement and in another place and we do not propose now to go down that path. However, we propose to do something for the tenants in the group to which I have referred, many of whom have by chance ended up as housing association tenants rather than local authority tenants and thereby find themselves denied the rights that they would otherwise have been given. I know from my constituency mail that many of these tenants were disappointed by the loss of the former clause 2 and are now anxiously awaiting the implementation of the proposals that we have introduced.
The scheme that the Government propose meets the main objections which were voiced in another place and in the housing association movement. Broadly, it will give the cash equivalent of the discount that the tenant would have been given to help him buy another property of his own choice. The proposal avoids reducing the stock of charitable housing association houses and flats for rent, which was the main concern of the housing association movement. It will release a home for those who are on the waiting lists of the charitable housing associations. It will bring help to those on the waiting list at an earlier date than might otherwise have been the case and at a fraction of the cost of building a new unit. It will also bring home ownership within reach of more people, which means that it will be in line with the Government's overall policy. I am therefore somewhat disappointed, though not altogether surprised, that the Labour party is opposing the new scheme, which has been broadly welcomed by the National Federation of Housing Associations and by many of those who are active in the housing association movement.
Subsection (1) defines eligible tenants. Subsection (2) extends the Secretary of State's power to pay grant to fund the costs of each transaction, including the discount. Subsection (3) is a technical provision that will allow the transaction to proceed by way of sub-sale, ensuring that

normal requirements, such as the need for housing corporation consent and the statutory discount repayment covenant, apply, and enabling the Housing Corporation to offer mortgage finance to qualifying tenants in such circumstances.
Subsection (4) enables non-charitable registered housing associations that wish to participate in the scheme to extend their objects without prejudice to their registration with the Housing Corporation. The subsection is the subject of a minor technical drafting amendment—amendment (a)—which requires further consequential amendments to the Bill. These are Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the Minister's reference to housing finance being available to the Housing Corporation a new concept? He seems to be saying that the corporation will be acting as a sort of building society. Was that intended?

Sir Gregory Young: When my right hon. Friend introduced the scheme just before Christmas he referred to the arrangements that would be made. In fixing the Housing Corporation's budget for the coming year, we have taken into account the money that it will need to operate the scheme. We have given assurances in another place that we have safeguarded Housing Corporation interests by taking into account the estimated amount of money that is needed when we fixed its budget. I am happy to repeat that assurance.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the £10 million estimate of the scheme's cost to the Housing Corporation be increased as a result of the proposal that the corporation should fund the discounts given to charitable tenants to buy elsewhere and make up the balance of the purchase price of another property? Does the £10 million include the discounts and the estimated loans?
Secondly, the Minister has already made it clear, although I do not remember where, that funds for the scheme will come from the moneys otherwise available for housing association schemes of new build, improvement and conversion. Will the £10 million or so be divided and deducted from the budgets of individual housing associations or will it be taken generally from the housing association movement?

Sir George Young: The £10 million has not come out of the funds that would otherwise have gone to particular housing associations. I can reassure the House that when we made available the corporation's resources we took into account resources that would be needed for that scheme. The £10 million must be found by the Housing Corporation to provide the money required by the housing associations when a tenant exercises his right to buy.
The housing associations will be refunded by the Housing Corporation for the costs involved in funding the discount.
On the second point raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) the estimate of £10 million is the best that we can make. It compares with the national federation's estimate of about £14 million, so we are dealing with roughly the same figures. We have reconsidered our estimate in the light of the national federation's estimate, but we stand by our own. It is based


on experience of operating the right to buy for a non-charitable housing association, and is not significantly out of line with the national federation's estimate.

Mr. Allan Roberts: One of the arguments that the Minister and other Conservative Members have put forward for the sale of council houses is that the discount money—the public expenditure used to provide discounts—is justified because capital receipts from council house sales can be used for more public sector housing. Will not the new scheme do just the opposite by using public expenditure as handouts to the tenants of housing association flats, so that they can buy other owner-occupied properties, without having to provide capital receipts before being provided with new accommodation?
What is more, even though a vacancy would be created thereby and a new tenant could move into a housing association dwelling, he could also exercise his rights under the new clause. He would receive a further discount on the same property because he would bring with him the benefit of the length of time that he spent in another public sector dwelling to be used to acquire a discount into that housing association dwelling.

Sir George Young: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is most unlikely that a charitable housing association whose objectives are strictly defined would rehouse someone who had already left housing association property and become an owner-occupier, thereby qualifying for a discount the second time around. I do not believe that many housing associations would rehouse such an applicant.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman skated over the significant advantage of securing a vacancy for those on a housing association waiting list at about £6,000 to £7,000, which is a fraction of the cost of building a new unit, which costs about £30,000. That is one of the scheme's great advantages.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: I should like to make progress. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he wants to intervene again.
The provisions that I have outlined provide a statutory framework for the scheme, and the details will be dealt with administratively. It is intended that a discount funded out of housing association grant will be based on the discount that a tenant would have received if he had the right to buy the dwelling in which he lives, adjusted in a way that I shall explain later, in the light of an open market purchase value. Shared ownership will be available to those who cannot afford outright purchase, with a minimum share of 50 per cent.
To take up the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Norwood, we foresee that some tenants might require Housing Corporation mortgages, which is a discretionary power taken into account in the £10 million provision.
The scheme addresses an anomaly and encourages home ownership in a modest way, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). It frees publicly funded charitable housing association dwellings for reletting in accordance with the purposes of the charity.
Concern has been expressed about possible abuses of the scheme, so I hope that I shall be able to reassure the House. We propose to introduce upper limits on the value

of purchases of £40,000 in London, £35,000 in the home counties and £30,000 elsewhere. Once the right-to-buy discount has been established on a rented dwelling taking the cost floor into account, it must be adjusted to take account of the value of the property to be purchased. The discount received by a tenant under the scheme will never be higher in cash than he would be entitled to under the right to buy; nor would it be a higher percentage of the purchase price than the tenant would have obtained if he were buying his existing dwelling under the right to buy. If the tenant purchases on shared ownership terms, the discount will be scaled down in proportion to the size of the share. Such safeguards mean that tenants will not be able to use discounts to acquire a house on the open market for little or no contribution of their own.
We also propose to introduce a requirement that the tenant should have occupied the rented dwelling, for at least two years before participating in the scheme. Together with the major safeguard in the requirement for charitable landlords to let only to tenants who conform with their charitable objectives, that requirement will prevent successive tenants being moved into particular dwellings, so as to obtain large discounts under the scheme. That may have been the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle.

Mr. Roberts: indicated dissent.

Sir George Young: If that was not the hon. Gentleman's point he did not make himself clear enough.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is thick.

Sir George Young: It has been suggested that the scheme will distort the housing market, but such fears are much exaggerated. The proposal is far too modest to cause a ripple in the market, in which the element accounted for by first-time buyers alone amounts to many billions of pounds.

Mr. John Fraser: If the £10 million covers discounts and mortgages granted by the Housing Corporation at an average price of £20,000 for a house bought outside the charitable sector, that would allow the tenants of charitable housing associations to buy 500 houses. Can the Minister confirm that he expects that about 500 people would exercise the right to buy? Would significantly fewer housing association than local authority tenants exercise that right? The Minister must have some figures available to show how many people have exercised the right to buy, which I believe to be one in 20 council tenants.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has assumed in making his estimate that the mortgages available will not be provided by the private sector. We hope that they will be provided in that way. The hon. Gentleman's calculations are somewhat pessimistic. Many more purchases can be funded from the £10 million allocation.
The measure is important because it will help housing association tenants who wish to become home owners as well as those on the waiting list. It has been broadly welcomed by the housing association movement.
I commend to the House the Lords amendments, together with subsequent amendments.

Mr. Heffer: As Conservative Members are aware, this is the first opportunity that we have had to debate this scheme in the House. The Minister skated over that point.
We first heard about this matter in a written answer on 21 December, and this is the first chance the House has


had to examine it. That is not good enough, because this is an important and, in a sense, major departure. Clearly, the Government are trying to get round a problem. Originally, they wanted to allow this type of accommodation to be bought and to give the tenant the right to buy the other house. They then decided otherwise, but eventually came under great pressure from their supporters, who attempted to reverse the decision of the other House and, consequently, the legislation. The Government have now come forward with this compromise.
This is a disgrace for three reasons. First, as I said earlier, this is the first time that the House has had a chance to debate the matter, and there is no excuse for it not having been introduced and discussed earlier. In our view, the scheme should have been introduced before the legislation left this House and went to the other place.
It is also disgraceful because, like the rest of the Bill, the scheme offers what I can only describe as petty measures of liberalisation. It does not provide new resources for an expanding house building programme, which is what the country desperately requires at present.
Worst of all, it is disgraceful because the Government are proposing to give large cash handouts to a relatively small number of tenants. Even if the private sector provided all the mortgages, only between 1,000 and 1,250—at a stretch, possibly 1,500—dwellings would become available. Clearly, therefore, only a small number of tenants will be involved.
Those fairly privileged few are already in good accommodation, unlike millions of others, yet they are offered a scheme under which there will be no cash limits or waiting lists and which will be funded at the expense of other Housing Corporation projects, as well as at the taxpayers' expense in the long run.
Personally—I believe that this goes for most of my colleagues—I see no merit in this scheme. It has merely been introduced because of the dogmatic approach that Conservative Members have adopted towards public housing.
In the debate in the other place, the Minister of State said the Government recognised the case to deal "fairly" with tenants who live in housing association rented property. The word "fair" has been used by Conservative Members for a long time, and I always get worried when I hear them talk about how fair they will be or about how fairly they will treat people and deal with matters. It sends a slight shiver down my spine when Conservative Ministers, both here and in another place, use that word.
We must also consider those who will not benefit from the scheme. It will not help tenants of charitable housing associations who live in houses built before 1974, nor will it help tenants of private landlords.
I am not certain whether I am allowed to quote the proceedings in another place, and if I am not, I shall not——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He is allowed to quote Ministers in the other place, but if he wishes to refer to non-Ministers perhaps he will paraphrase.

Mr. Heffer: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had forgotten that. I wanted to quote a Minister in the other place, who said:
The Government have always recognised the overwhelming case to deal fairly with these people and to help those who want to take on and who can afford to take on—and I accept that they may not be very many in number—the benefit and responsibilities of home ownership. That is why we have come forward with this scheme".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 1984; Vol. 449, c. 193]
I am sure that thousands of tenants of private landlords would like to take on the responsibilities of home ownership. I am sure that they would love to obtain a grant or assistance to enable them to buy another house and even to obtain a mortgage, perhaps from the Housing Corporation or some other such body. However, they will receive no assistance whatever. Therefore, the Government draw the line at those in public dwellings, and the scheme will not be extended to those in private dwellings. Equally, it will in no way benefit the tenants of private landlords. It will not help council tenants living in flats or houses that no one would willingly buy, and it will certainly not help the average potential first-time buyer.
The Government estimate that the scheme will cost £10 million a year. Even with 100 per cent. mortgages, we have worked out how many people that will involve. The National Federation of Housing Associations puts the figure at £14 million. Together they suggest an expenditure of between £50 million and £70 million over a five-year period, yet for that sum not one new home will be built. Unlike the right-to-buy schemes, no receipts will be generated to compensate for the diversion of Housing Corporation funds away from new projects.
The figures that I have just given are conservative estimates. The National Housing and Town Planning Council and the AMA have calculated that the scheme will cost £19 million in the rest of this financial year, £38 million in 1985–86 and 1986–87, and that thereafter it is likely to tail off. On their calculations—after all, these people keep a close watch on accommodation and housing projects generally—the scheme could cost £95 million over the next three years without one new home being built. The £95 million could have built 3,800 new houses. The Housing Corporation has already said that its cash limit for 1984–85—£617 million with another £70 million from receipts—is insufficient to meet its commitments. If it completes its 1983–84 programme in full, there will be nothing left for new projects for 1984–85. There is now an effective moratorium on Housing Corporation spending, and this new scheme can only make matters worse.
A vote for the Government's new clause is a vote for fewer homes, not more. It is a vote to make the national housing shortage worse rather than better.
I quote from an editorial in The Times on 6 March:
The proposal … is for a hand-out; money has already been earmarked in the public accounts for 1984–85. Lord Bellwin today asks for power to allow the Secretary of State for the Environment to make grants to charitable housing associations for buying property on the open market and then selling it to their tenants at a discount. The effect is to endow those tenants. They are, it appears, to acquire the 'right' to claim from their landlord a capital sum that could—for all the Government has admitted—total the entire purchase price … The House of Lords has an obligation today to smoke out Lord Bellwin.


Unfortunately, the House of Lords did not completely succeed in smoking out Lord Bellwin, although an interesting speech was made and some interesting facts made known. The article continued:
His only defence is the need to treat 'public' tenants consistently, an argument to be refuted by reference to the markedly different legal status of housing associations which are charities and are enjoined by the charity commissioners' rules to specific purposes of alleviating want.
I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am allowed to quote from Lord Bellwin's reply to a letter written to him by Baroness Birk on 6 March. Lord Bellwin said:
The estimate is not a cash limit for the scheme, although it will be funded from the Housing Corporation's ADP, which has a net cash limit".
We have just discussed that matter, so I shall not repeat it. Lord Bellwin continued:
If take-up in the first year is significantly greater than the estimate we have made, the implications for the shape of the Corporation's programme for the remainder of the year would depend on the size of the variation and the scope for change in the other elements which make up the programme.
That is the point. If many people became involved, the other elements of the programme—taking over and modernising dwellings, and providing accommodation for ordinary people and those in need—could not be funded. That is a very backward step. There will be less money for adaptations and in other directions.
The new clause has been brought forward only because of Conservative ideology. It has not been brought forward because it is good, because it is essential, because it will help forward the housing programme in any way, or because it is fair. Indeed, it is grossly unfair to thousands of tenants who will be given no assistance.

Mr. Allan Roberts: According to Lord Bellwin in another place, the purpose of the measure
is to enable the Secretary of State to pay housing association grant so that tenants of publicly-funded dwelling-houses, excluded from the right to buy because of the charitable status of their landlord, may puchase a house, or a share of a house, on the open market, on similar terms to the right to buy."—
[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 1984; Vol. 449, c. 192.]
The House of Lords, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the housing association movement were able to combine in opposition to the Government's proposals to give the tenants of charitable housing associations the right to buy. Those tenants, who—by chance, as the Minister said—are housing association tenants and not council tenants, are now to be given cash handouts of public money to leave their dwellings and buy a house in the traditional owner-occupier market. They may be given £10,000, £12,000 or more of public money.
There is no precedent for such a scheme. The National Federation of Housing Associations has welcomed and supported it. In my view, the federation should be ashamed of itself. In supporting the scheme, it has sought the easy way out. In the past, the federation has campaigned for and supported those in housing need—the people whom the housing associations were set up to assist. I was proud of the campaign that the federation waged to be allowed to continue to fulfil its traditional role of providing accommodation for those in need, through its member associations. But the federation has now fallen for the Government's three-card trick.
The proposal also reveals the nature of the Government's right-to-buy provisions in the general

public rented sector. They have given hidden cash handouts of ratepayers', rent-payers' and taxpayers' money to those who have the right to buy council properties as sitting tenants. Their argument and their justification was that they were enabling sitting tenants to buy the homes that they had lived in and paid rent on for a long period and in which they wanted to continue to live. That was the Conservative party's justification for the large discounts on purchases in the public rented sector, and in this case that argument goes by the board.
In an intervention I have already mentioned the Government's other argument. They argued that a public body such as, for instance, a non-charitable lousing association to which the right-to-buy provisions apply, or a local council, which sold a property—taking account of the discount—could use the capital thus acquired to replace the asset that had been sold, or for other capital housing purposes. That argument also does not apply in this case.
The Minister will say that the housing association property which is released can be offered to someone else. However, whether the Minister admits it or not, the position is as follows. The new tenant may at some time have lived in another public rented property. He may have lived in a council house in another area. He may have lived for 10 years in a walk-up block of fiats, an inter-war property which the council then knocked down, and he may have been rehoused not into a council property but into the property of the housing association. Such a person could move into the dwelling whose outgoing tenant had just been given £10,000, and after a few months he too could collect £10,000 of public money in order to buy another property.
The Minister may have wished to misunderstand me. The housing associations will not, of course, house someone who has been an owner-occupier, but they will house in the dwellings that become vacant people who have built up time in the public rented sector which will enable them to qualify for another large discount. The same dwelling could be discounted repeatedly, month after month and year after year, as new tenants moved in. That is an amazing proposal and we should examine the precedent that it sets. It will take away from the housing association movement a substantial amount of money which would have been used, through the Housing Corporation, local authorities and housing associations. to build more dwellings or to acquire, modernise and improve dwellings.
It is obvious that a massive number of people in charitable housing association accommodation will take up the offer. It is like winning the pools. Unfortunate enough to be a housing association tenant? A person on the waiting list in Sefton who cannot get a council flat and instead acquires a dwelling that has recently been built by the Merseyside Improved Housing Association will, in three or four years, be given a cash handout to become an owner-occupier. Not so the unfortunate person who, having been on the waiting list or in a slum clearance area, has been put into the diminishing stock of housing in Sefton which is now confined to flats or one of the problem estates, as the best housing there has already been sold.
5 pm
Unlike all of the other people on the waiting list. such a person will be rewarded with a decent house. Some people in my area think that they have won the pools if


they are offered a decent house, as they have had to wait so long because rented accommodation is in such shortage. In addition, such a person will get a few thousand pounds if he has not done the years of service in public rented property necessary to buy a house. What will that mean to people in inadequate accommodation, people on the waiting list and the homeless? There will be a flood of people taking up the offer, as much housing association property is extremely good compared with council property and privately rented property. The vast majority of it has been built since 1974. Indeed, much of it is new as it was built in the days of the Labour Government after the Housing Act 1974 which provided for public money to be used. There was a massive increase in housing association property, all of which is extremely good.
The precedent that the Government are setting gives the next Labour Government an opportunity to pursue their example for the benefit of people who are in real housing need. If we are to have the right to buy, and if public money is to be handed out so that people can buy, what about the right to rent and the right to sell? The Government are giving us an amazingly good precedent. How about a law requiring that anyone on a council house waiting list who is in housing need has the right to require a local authority to give him a grant or discount to purchase property? How about someone on the council waiting list having the right to require the local authority to purchase a property in the private market and then rent it to him?
As we have accepted the principle of the right to buy and the right to rent, we should extend it and use public money for the benefit of people in real housing need. How about the rights of the owner-occupier who becomes elderly and cannot afford the upkeep of his dwelling? Why should he not be able to sell that property to the local authority and then rent it back?
What about the right of tenants in the private rented sector? We have often demanded that the right to buy which is enjoyed by council tenants should also be enjoyed by tenants of private landlords. The Government say that we have no right to do that because the property concerned is privately owned and that we can enforce sales only on public assets. Introduction of the proposed scheme to the private rented sector would mean that we would not have to force the private landlord to sell his assets as we could give the private tenant a discount and enable him to become an owner-occupier. There is no reason why we should not do that, as the 12 per cent. of tenants who rent in the private sector are the most disadvantaged in terms of housing conditions, repairs and rents. They are far worse off in those terms than tenants of charitable housing associations. Why should not such tenants also have cash handouts?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, this is one of the most doctrinaire pieces of housing legislation that we have ever come across. I hope that the House will defeat it. If it does not, I hope that the Labour party will adopt the type of remedy that I have suggested. I hope that, when Labour becomes the next Government, it will apply the precedent that the Government are now setting on the right to buy to the right to rent, and use public money to that end. Such money should be used for the benefit of people in the private rented sector, those in housing need, those on public housing waiting lists and the homeless.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): Any one who wants to hear a stale old argument will never hear it better expressed than by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). I am happy to be called an ideologue in this sense. I am happy to have ideologies and ideals and I am glad to support this scheme which puts those ideals into effect for thousands of tenants of charitable housing associations who were denied the right to buy on the same basis as council tenants.
When I was Member of Parliament for a new town, literally hundreds of my constituents took places on waiting lists, almost at random between the local district council and charitable housing associations. Many were deeply disappointed when they discovered that the right-to-buy provision applied to those who had taken council houses or non-charitable housing association property but not to people whose housing association—all power to its elbow—happened to be a charity.
This scheme puts that right for those thousands of people. It gives them the opportunity to become homeowners and to have all the benefits associated with home ownership which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) recognises. I am glad that he recognises that it is of real advantage for people to be able to own their own home. I am sorry only that the hon. Member for Bootle should speak of such provisions so bitterly. The Opposition should welcome the fact that, when tenants of charitable housing associations take up the scheme and buy into the private sector, a nice charitable housing association house will become available for someone else who might have less good accommodation or be on the council waiting list. Did I hear a word of welcome for that good purpose from the Opposition? I did not. There were nothing but grumbles.
I recognise that there were difficulties for charitable housing associations in accepting the original scheme which applied to non-charitable housing associations. It is greatly to the credit of charitable housing associations that they have approved this scheme which will give their tenants, like council tenants, the opportunity to become home owners and will make new places available for people who need them. I warmly welcome the scheme. It shows sensible flexibility and imagination on the part of the Government and charitable housing associations.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on the immensely hard work that he has done in formulating the scheme, encouraging it to be advanced in another place and so skilfully managing matters that it is before us today so that we have an opportunity to vote in favour of it. I shall vote in favour of the scheme with a will because it puts right what has long been wrong. It should be warmly welcomed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Statistics show that 80 per cent. of my constituents live in council accommodation, 16 per cent. in charitable accommodation and between 3 and 4 per cent. in private accommodation. The figures are extreme because Southwark and Bermondsey has the highest proportion of public sector housing of any constituency in England.
Although some of the arguments deployed by the Government are true, they are also illogical. When people who are looking for housing have a range of rented accommodation available to them, they will first look to the local authority. If it cannot accommodate them, they will turn to a charitable housing trust or housing


association. If they fall within the definition of those whom such a body can house, they may be housed more quickly than by the local council, which may have a longer waiting list. They may be able to move even more quickly into private rented accommodation. That does not apply in my constituency, but it does elsewhere.
If, after being housed, tenants of a charitable housing trust wish to leave, they are normally in a less advantageous position than public sector tenants because there is less choice in the charitable housing market—for example, the Peabody Trust, the Guinness Trust and housing associations such as Provident Life Association of London Ltd.—than in local authority housing stock. If they wish to buy, they will also be at a disadvantage having accepted housing, whether by chance or accident, compared with tenants of the local authority. Then the difference manifests itself.
If the House supports the amendment, people will receive compensation from Government funds through the Housing Corporation rather than under the right-to-buy provisions, where the local authority effectively contributes the advantage to the purchaser.
I am worried that the wording of the amendment in subsection (2) is inadequate. It says:
The Secretary of State may pay housing association grant under section 29 of the 1974 Act to the association registered.
It should say that the Secretary of State "shall" pay grant.
My first objection, therefore, is that there is no guarantee of an exact payment of the total sum paid to those people to compensate the public sector in terms of housing resources for the money taken from it for people who purchase under these provisions. Will the Under-Secretary undertake to assure the House, not that the matter will be considered, but that compensation will be paid to the public sector housing fund—the Housing Corporation's budget—to meet each and every cost it must bear of paying people who buy under the provision?
Insufficient money goes into the public sector housing or the Housing Corporation to meet their needs. We must be assured that the Housing Corporation will not lose even £1 and that we shall not proceed by negotiation, exploration and a see-how-we-go approach.
5.15 pm
The Government rightly believe, as all parties believe, that if people can buy they should be able to do so. That is a good thing because it gives people independence and control of their homes. The Government started by giving the right to buy in the public sector—now is not the time to raise the substantial objections of the Liberal party to that scheme—and now seek to extend that with a broad brush. Our arguments in this House and a vote in the other place prevented charitable associations from having to give up.
Other bodies will now be disadvantaged because private purchasers will not be able to buy when they have rented private accommodation for a considerable period. If the Government believe in enabling tenants to buy their homes, they must adopt a consistent attitude to all tenants, no matter whose tenants they are. Secondly, will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary explain the difference which allows people in public housing a right that is not given to the other two categories of person?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State explain why, under the amendment, we shall have to change the objectives of

housing associations? An ancillary amendment before the House today deletes what was inserted in the House of Lords in subsection (4). New subsection (4) states:
Section 13 of the 1974 Act shall have effect as if the additional purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (3) of that section included the purpose or object of effecting transactions falling within subsection (2)".
If the aim is to widen the objectives of housing associations—publicly funded bodies which provide housing—it is inconsistent to amend the Bill so that those bodies effectively do themselves out of that role.
The country needs a mixture of housing. As phrased, the amendment simplistically says that there are two sorts of housing—public sector and private sector—and that private sector housing is always best. It seeks to advantage the private sector and the private occupant over the public sector.
Over the years charitable housing with public funding created a third sector between the public and private sectors. That housing sector does not have the great bureaucracy or the municipal attitudes and appearance of enormous housing estates. It meets housing needs that were not otherwise met. The Goverment's inconsistency in not respecting the right of that third sector to continue in existence until the enormous needs are met—they are not met yet—is the fallacy behind the amendment and the reason why Liberal Members will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Chris Smith: Last Thursday I had a public meeting with many charitable housing association tenants in my constituency, at which we discussed the Bill. After talking to them at length about the so-called right to repair, which the House will discuss later, we talked about the right-to-buy provisions of the Lords' amendment and the Government's scheme. Their reaction was extremely interesting. They recognised that it gave them an extremely lucrative opportunity, but that it was grossly inequitable that they should be advantaged in that way when no other sections of the community were.
I had to be completely honest with them and say that I opposed the proposal root and branch in the interests of the general good rather than in their interests as individual, prospective purchasers. Their agreement with me on that extremely important point both surprised and pleased me. Clearly they saw the basic point that the Opposition would make against the proposal: that the Government, in order to get themselves off a legislative hook, have come up with a scheme that is profoundly inequitable in concept and practice.
Why are the Government bringing forward a proposal to give cash handouts to charitable housing association tenants but not introducing this scheme for the tenants of private landlords? Whenever the Opposition have asked, "Why is the right to buy good enough for the public sector but not for the private rented sector?", the Government have replied, "We are talking about property in the hands of landlords, which should not be touched by legislation." If that is so, why cannot the Government come up with a similar ingenious scheme which preserves the property in landlords' hands but gives cash handouts to the tenants? If they had the interests of private sector tenants at heart, they would try to introduce such a scheme.

Mr. Allan Roberts: After the Easter recess the House will have the opportunity to debate a Bill that will give the right to buy to tenants in the private rented sector. I challenge Conservative Members to vote for that Bill,


unless they wish to prove to the public what they are not in favour of extending the frontiers of owner-occupation, but are merely in favour of attacking the public rented sector.

Mr. Smith: I am privileged to be a sponsor of my hon. Friend's Bill, which I hope the House will pass with acclaim.
Our principal objection to this proposal is its inequality, which should be enough to dismiss it immediately. The Government estimate that they will have to give the Housing Corporation £10 million as an extra amount—although their definition of "extra" is different from that of most normal mortals—to provide the cash discounts that will be a gravy train for one set of people in our community. That estimate is grossly inadequate, because housing association tenants will realise that it is an extremely lucrative proposal. If someone said to me, "Here is £6,000 or £10,000—go and buy yourself a house", I would find that an extremely attractive proposition. The tenants of housing associations will take up this scheme in great numbers, and the Housing Corporation will have to spend much more than the £10 million which the Government have set aside to implement this clause. Where will the Government get that additional money? Will it be deducted from the amount that the Housing Corporation has to spend on the development of new housing or the rehabilitation of old housing elsewhere in the country?
If the money is to come from a central pool, will it be allocated to individual housing associations? There are two excellent housing associations operating in my constituency that do not have much property. If many people exercised the rights under this clause, would the Government say that there is a bottomless pit of money available, or would they say, "We are sorry but we do not have enough money. You will have to sell some of your property in order to fund this process"? The Government should give the House a guarantee that no housing association will be forced to sell property for that purpose. If they cannot give us such a guarantee, we can draw our own conclusions.
This legislation is inequitable, impractical and grossly inadequate. I and my colleagues will oppose it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: This subject is very close to my heart. I mentioned it in my maiden speech, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and I mentioned it in Committee. I am glad that this amendment has come before the House.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to some of the problems that he encountered when he represented part of my constituency. If this amendment is not passed, the present inequitable position will continue, which cannot be right. Many of the tenants of charitable housing associations in my constituency are tenants purely by chance. Indeed, in many cases their houses are identical to the local authority houses down the road. At one time one person was being taken off the waiting list into local authority housing for every one person taken off the waiting list into charitable housing. However, the charitable housing tenants do not have the right to buy their homes.
I could have understood that had the charity provided most of the money for the housing development, but it did not; 98 per cent. of the money for the largest development in my constituency—the Sutton estate—was provided by the Government. The charity provided the remaining 2 per cent., not for property development but for environmental works on the estate. Yet housing associations have used that relatively small amount of money to prevent tenants from buying their homes.
I should have preferred a continuation of the Government's original scheme to give the right to buy to those charitable housing association tenants, but I understand the practicalities. However, Ministers have come up with an alternative scheme that has already been welcomed in my constituency by many tenants who are desperately anxious to own their homes. I warmly welcome this amendment and shall vote for it. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do likewise.

Mr. John Fraser: The reason why the Labour party opposes this Lords amendment is that it represents a cut in the money spent by housing associations on new building, conversions and improvements. That must follow from the Government's attachment to cash limits. Next year the Housing Corporation and the housing associations can spend only about £680 million, and the Government have made it clear that the cost of paying discounts to tenants to charitable associations must come out of the budget of the housing association movement. The more the tenants of charitable housing associations exercise their right to buy and to receive a mortgage from the Housing Corporation, the less money will be provided for other Housing Corporation schemes. Every pound that goes towards a discount or a mortgage means a pound less spent on improvements, repairs, the acquisition of land or new building.
I shall give the House a startling illustration of how this operates. The Government have based their scheme for allowing the tenants of charitable housing associations to buy—or to require their landlords to buy houses elsewhere—on what was called the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme. The Minister nods in agreement. That scheme enabled someone in housing need to exercise a combination of the right to buy and the right to rent. He could say to a housing association, "I am in housing need. Will you buy that house and let it to me under the shared ownership scheme?" That provides the precedent for what is proposed for the tenants of charitable housing associations. But what has happened? The do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme has been abandoned because there was not enough money in the Housing Corporation budget to pay for it. At the same time as the right to buy has been thrown to one side the same right is introduced for those who are reasonably well housed. The amendment made in another place gives an advantage to the better housed at the expense of those who are worst housed.
5.30 pm
I am wholly in favour of home ownership, as are all my hon. Friends. To govern is to choose. The Government had two choices. They could have gone for investment or for discounts. They have gone for discounts as against new building. We are strongly opposed to something that will again diminish the amount of new housing and repaired and renovated housing.
I should not need to give the House the statistics, but there is an overall shortage of 800,000 homes. There are


1 million homes which are unfit. In London alone there are 250,000 people on the housing waiting list. The statistics of housing despair remain appalling. Yet, despite all the shortages, the Government choose to give priority to cash handouts rather than to the provision of new or repaired accommodation. The attitude of the Government to these matters is like a dose of anorexia nervosa being given to a man suffering starvation who has sought advice.
There must be an order of priority. The first priority should be to provide for those in greatest need and not to have massive discounts which represent an open-ended cut in the housing association budget. We strongly oppose the proposals, not because we want to prevent people from owning their own homes but because we want to make the greatest provision for those in greatest need.

Sir George Young: I regret very much that the Opposition have taken a negative attitude to the scheme My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) rightly put it in the broader context by pointing out that the scheme helps not just those tenants who can take advantage of it put the people about whom the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) spoke at the end of his remarks, the most disadvantaged. It will enable people on the waiting list, who are living in desperate housing accommodation, to get decent homes at an earlier date than they otherwise would have done.
Opposition Members have turned their argument against the right to buy on its head. They opposed the right to buy when we introduced it because they said it would diminish the stock of public rented accommodation and that those who were in a position to buy should be encouraged so to do. When we now introduce a scheme which will do exactly that, and maintain the stock of public rented accommodation owned by housing associations, they say that they do not like that either. They say that we are providing public money but not getting new assets. That comes from a party that at one stage was proposing to municipalise the whole of the private rented sector. How much public money would that have cost without adding anything to the housing stock?
There is disagreement on the role of private tenants and public tenants. We have consistently made it clear that the Government have a mandate for properties that have been provided out of public funds. We have no mandate for property that has been provided out of private funds. That is why we have never extended the right to buy to private tenants, nor do we propose to extend this scheme to private tenants.
The reason why the scheme has been introduced is that tenants of charitable housing association property are the only tenants living in property provided out of public funds who do not have the right to buy. That is the inequity, the disadvantage and the anomaly that we are seeking to put right. Our original scheme was not acceptable to another place and we have introduced this alternative. Far from being dogmatic, as we have been accused, we have been flexible. We have found a scheme which the National Federation of Housing Associations, the organisation involved, supports. It welcomes the fact that members of the housing association movement can now help those on the waiting list by enabling those who have home ownership within their grasp to move on.
In reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), may I say that there will be no

question of housing associations having to sell property to finance the scheme. I give that categorical assurance. The resources required to fund the scheme will be taken into account in setting the figure for the Housing Corporation budget for future years.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister says that the resources will be taken into account. Can he give a categorical assurance that the amount of money that will be available for conversion, repair and new building will in no way be cut as a result of people exercising their rights under this scheme?

Sir George Young: What I said was that the resources required to fund the scheme will be taken into account in setting the figure for the housing corporation budget for future years. We have not begun to look at the budget for next year, 1985–86. We have only just arrived at the public expenditure figures for the current year. It would be going too far to expect me to say anything about years ahead. The resources required will be taken into account.
Subsection (4), as amended, is designed to allow non-charitable housing associations, if they so wish, to have within or add to their objects the purpose of undertaking disposals and acquisitions under the scheme without prejudice to registration under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974. It does not affect or jeopardise their objects. Also, there is no requirement on any housing association that does not want to participate in the scheme so to do. The other housing associations can operate as vehicles for particular tenants if their own housing association is reluctant to get involved. Of course the housing associations that are the vehicle for this will be compensated for the funds involved by the Housing Corporation and there will be allowances to cover their administrative costs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that at the moment no housing association within the definition of the Act has such an object amongst its objects?

Sir George Young: I am not sure that I can give an off-the-cuff reply. What I can say is that the amendment has been suggested to us by, I think, the Registrar of Friendly Societies. It is fairly technical and will ensure that societies can amend their objects to enable them to participate in the scheme, if they want to, without creating a conflict with the conditions for registration with the registry or the corporation. It makes a consequential change to the powers under section 127 of the Housing Act 1980 for improvement for sale and shared ownership schemes.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) suggested that the scheme might be abused by different tenants moving into the same property within months and getting advantage of the discount. I hope I made it clear when I spoke earlier that we envisage a two-year residence requirement before a tenant can exercise his right under this clause.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister still continues to misunderstand the point I was making. I was saying that the same property will continue to provide a discount. One tenant who had received £10,000 because he was a tenant of a charitable housing association might move out. A month later another tenant who has moved in may receive £10,000 because he, a different tenant, is entitled to the money because he has lived previously in other public


sector property. The same property will earn a discount which does not happen under the right to buy in the council sector.

Sir George Young: I must make it clear that the tenant will have to spend two years in the property before he is entitled to any payment under this scheme. So it is not the case that a series of tenants will be able to move in month after month and get the discount.
Another point that must be made is that the charitable objectives of many housing associations would preclude them from rehousing those who were in a position to buy. Their objectives are confined to those in need. We must remember that local authority accommodation can be used in precisely the way that the hon. Member has described under the right-to-buy scheme. The same property can be used to clock up entitlement to discount for a succession of tenants.
I have been asked by several hon. Members about the basis of the estimate of £10 million. We estimate that 1 per cent. of eligible tenants in each of the first two years will give approximately 1,000 sales in each year. At an average price of £20,000 to £25,000, with an average discount of 40 per cent., that gives a cost of £8 million to £10 million for the first year. Shared ownership and mortgages granted by the corporation suggest about £10 million, taking account of the fact that the cost floor will reduce the discount in a number of cases. That is the best estimate of cost that we can provide.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I want to get this straight. The Minister said that an incoming tenant would have had to have lived for two years in the dwelling to be entitled to the discount. That is not the provision of the right to buy under the 1980 Act. Where is that provision amended to mean that it has to be in that dwelling rather than in a public sector dwelling? Is there another amendment, as it does not seem to be in this clause?

Sir George Young: As I said, the provisions provide a statutory framework for the scheme, but the details will be dealt with administratively, and that is why the details are not part of the Bill. I can confirm that new tenants must spend two years in the dwelling before they can take advantage of the scheme, and that is the difference between the scheme and the ordinary right to buy.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister stating that, because it is an administrative scheme, there will be no right, simply discretion by the charity?

Sir George Young: What is before the House sets out the statutory framework. The tenant will have a statutory right. The details of the scheme will be dealt with administratively and I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the details that he wants.

Mr. Allan Roberts: We do not know how the scheme will work because the details are not before us, and the Minister has not provided the regulations or the basis of the scheme. If the person moves into the dwelling and has to wait two years before he can buy at a discount, at the end of those two years does he get the discount to which he would be entitled on the basis of the right-to-buy provisions? If he was in a council property for 10 years before moving into the dwelling, after he had lived there for two years, does he get the larger, 12-year discount?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right. The tenant does not become entitled to any discount until he has been there for two years. Once he has fulfilled the two years, the discount entitlement will take account of previous periods as a public sector tenant.
I had better stop before I am asked any more questions to which the answers are not readily available. We have had a good debate on the scheme. There is clearly a fundamental difference of principle between the two sides of the House. However, we think that this is an imaginative scheme that will be of advantage to tenants and those on waiting lists. It has been warmly welcomed by housing associations. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that we are being asked to vote on something that is not before us. I seek your guidance because I do not understand how the House can vote on legislation described by the Minister but which is in no document that is before the House. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter is in order, otherwise it would not be before the House. I realise that Lords amendmens, particularly when there are amendments to them, are somewhat confusing, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that what has taken place is in order. We must now come to a decision, first on the amendment, and then on the Lords amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.

Question put, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 143.

Division No. 248]
[5.43 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ancram, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom
Churchill, W. S.


Ash by, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Coombs, Simon


Baldry, Anthony
Cope, John


Batiste, Spencer
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Bendall, Vivian
Cranborne, Viscount


Berry, Sir Anthony
Critchley, Julian


Best, Keith
Crouch, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dicks, Terry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Body, Richard
Dunn, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Evennett, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Farr, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Favell, Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fletcher, Alexander


Brinton, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fox, Marcus


Browne, John
Franks, Cecil


Bruinvels, Peter
Gale, Roger


Bryan, Sir Paul
Galley, Roy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buck, Sir Antony
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodlad, Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John






Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Ground, Patrick
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hanley, Jeremy
Miscampbell, Norman


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Harvey, Robert
Moate, Roger


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hawksley, Warren
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, J.
Montgomery, Fergus


Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John


Hayward, Robert
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Henderson, Barry
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hickmet, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L,
Neale, Gerrard


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Norris, Steven


Hooson, Tom
Onslow, Cranley


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Philip


Howard, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunter, Andrew
Powley, John


Irving, Charles
Price, Sir David


Jackson, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Renton, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Kilfedder, James A.
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knowles, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knox, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Luce, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Speller, Tony


McCusker, Harold
Spencer, Derek


Macfarlane, Neil
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanley, John


Maclean, David John
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Major, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Marlow, Antony
Stokes, John





Stradling Thomas, J.
Walden, George


Sumberg, David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Tapsell, Peter
Waller, Gary


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Watson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitney, Raymond


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Woodcock, Michael


Trippier, David
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, David
Mr. Carol Mather and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Robert Boscawen




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Godman, Dr Norman


Alton, David
Golding, John


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashdown, Paddy
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Harman, Ms Harriet


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barron, Kevin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Heffer, Eric S.


Bell, Stuart
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Benn, Tony
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bermingham, Gerald
Home Robertson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Blair, Anthony
Hoyle, Douglas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Johnston, Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kennedy, Charles


Clarke, Thomas
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, Dr John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McGuire, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maclennan, Robert


Deakins, Eric
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Meadowcroft, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Michie, William


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Nellist, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Brien, William


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Faulds, Andrew
Pavitt, Laurie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pendry, Tom


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Prescott, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Randall, Stuart


Freud, Clement
Richardson, Ms Jo


George, Bruce
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)






Robertson, George
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Tinn, James


Ryman, John
Torney, Tom


Sheerman, Barry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wareing, Robert


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Weetch, Ken


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
White, James


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Woodall, Alec


Snape, Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Soley, Clive



Steel, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. James Hamilton and


Straw, Jack
Mr. Allen McKay.


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Consequential amendments made to the Bill:

In page 88, line 19, at end insert—
' In subsection (1) of section 127 of that Act (registration of housing associations) for the words from the beginning to "its objects" there shall be substituted the words "Section 13 of the 1974 Act (the register of housing associations) shall have effect as if the additional purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (3) of that section included" and the words from "without" onwards shall be omitted.'.
In page 90, line 47, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 127(1), the words from "without" onwards.'.—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 1

EXTENSION TO CERTAIN CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 5, after "or" insert
save where the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only".

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be appropriate to take Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof.

Sir George Young: It is important to be clear what we are dealing with on this amendment. We are not talking about whether tenants of charitable housing associations should or should not have the right to buy. I cannot help suspecting that some of those who have opposed us on clause 1 believe that that is the issue at stake, particularly as this clause in more or less its present form went through both Houses last Session with barely a ripple of dissent.
The purpose of clause 1 is to extend the right to buy to tenants of property which is held on long leases by local authorities, housing associations and other public sector landlords. I remind my hon. Friends that this is a longstanding commitment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister affirmed it in answer to a parliamentary question two years ago and the commitment was explicitly reaffirmed in our manifesto before last year's general election. We said:
For public sector tenants, the present 'Right to Buy' scheme will be improved and extended to include the right to buy houses on leasehold land".
The issue here is whether tenants of leasehold property, who clearly have every reason to expect that we will give them the right to buy, should be denied that right if the lease held by their landlord was obtained from a charitable freeholder — for instance, a school or a college with charitable status.
The effect of the Lords amendment would be to deny tenants of such leasehold property any right to buy a long lease of their homes. I ask the House to consider very carefully what the consequences of that would be. Tenants of perfectly ordinary council houses would find themselves denied the right to buy, not because of anything to do with their status as tenants, not because of any physical characteristic of their home, but for what, from their point of view, can only be the wholly accidental reason that the land on which their home is built was at some time in the past leased to their landlord by a charitable freeholder. Having been denied the right to buy on what can only seem to them to be legalistic grounds, they may well have the dubious satisfaction of seeing their neighbours across the street, in identical houses, going ahead with their purchases simply because their homes happen to be on freehold land.
That is the consequence of this amendment, and this is by no means a theoretical case. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will wish to point out that there are several hundred dwellings in the London borough of Southwark in precisely this position. Given that Southwark is an unwilling seller of council houses, the only hope that these tenants have of being able to buy their homes rests with clause 1. The Lords amendment would destroy that hope.
I come to the reasons given for the amendment. The first is that charities have leased land in the expectation that they will get it back when the leases expire. If that is not the case, as a result of clause 1, they may well not be prepared to lease land for housing development in future. Secondly, the terms of compensation for freeholders subject to enfranchisement are thought to be inadequate.
I do not accept that these arguments justify excluding the tenants concerned from the right to buy.
What we are effectively being asked to do is to exclude freeholds held by charities from the enfranchisement provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That issue was debated at length during the passage of the 1967 legislation, but the outcome was that charities were not excluded from the enfranchisement rules. They are subject to enfranchisement on the same terms as any other freeholders. It would be anomalous to create a special exclusion for them in the context of clause 1 of this Bill. The charities are not being taken unawares in any way which did not apply to all freeholders brought within the scope of the enfranchisement in 1967.
Secondly, particular reference was made in the other place to the position of educational charities, such as the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, that have leased land to housing associations in the expectation that they will get it back for academic development at the end of the lease. What was not appreciated—although my noble Friend Lord Bellwin did refer to it—is that special provision is made in the 1967 Act to protect the position of such charities. Under section 28 of that Act, where a tenant applies to purchase the freehold, a university or college may apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science for a certificate that the property will be required within ten years for academic development. The grant of a certificate means that the application for enfranchisement cannot proceed.
6 pm
Alternatively, under section 29 of the 1967 Act, protection of development rights is available, even if no immediate development is in prospect. University bodies may, with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, impose restrictive covenants on any enfranchising tenants, reserving their rights for possible future development. My right hon. Friend has never yet refused consent to such an application. Consents are frequently and regularly given. Having imposed the covenants, university bodies can ask the Secretary of State to act as their agent to reacquire compulsory freeholds that have been enfranchised where the land is wanted for development purposes. That is a unique compulsory purchase power available to a private body.
I believe that that is a complete answer to those who have asserted that the result of clause 1 would be to deprive uiversities and colleges of land that they have let out on lease, but which they need for long-term academic development. I do not believe that we should concede the case for exemption.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Many hon. Members have probably received the same letter from the Association of Land-owning Charities, which refers to this point. It expresses concern for Oxford and Cambridge-type college land. Is the Minister saying that no charitable freehold land in places such as Oxford and Cambridge was leased for other than educational purposes as the reversionary purpose, and that all the land that we are talking about is covered by the provisions that he has mentioned, which give the Secretary of State for Education and Science some power? If not, it might help to have some figures, so that we know the number of properties in that category as well as in the other categories that the hon. Gentleman is no doubt about to deal with.

Sir George Young: The assurances that I gave a few moments ago were not quite as broad as the hon. Gentleman implies. The first one applies to property that will be required within 10 years for academic development. Under section 29, which is slightly broader, protection of development rights is available even if no developent is in prospect. Then the university bodies may, if my right hon. Friend the Scretary of State agrees, impose restrictive covenants on any enfranchising tenants, reserving their rights for possible future developments. I imagine that that development would be in connection with the academic role of the universities and colleges, rather than the slightly broader role implied by the hon. Gentleman.
However, we are anxious to do what we can to meet the fears expressed by charitable freeholders, without denying tenants their right to buy. We are prepared to look at the terms of compensation available to the freeholder in the event of enfranchisement. The terms originally written into the 1967 Act were amended by a Conservative Opposition amndement in 1974 when leasehold enfranchisement was extended to houses of higher rateable values. The effect of that alternative basis is generally to provide for higher compensation to the freeholders.
We suggest—this is the purpose of amendment (c)—that a reasonable compromise in this case would be to retain the application of clause 1 to property leased from charitable freeholders, but to provide that such freeholders are entitled to compensation on the 1974 basis in the event of enfranchisement. That, we suggest, would be a
reasonable recognition of their concern over this issue. Amendments (a) and (b) are technical drafting amendments on the same subject.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and I both share part of the Dulwich college estate. Can the Minister explain the logic of amendment (c)? Why should a relatively affluent leaseholder in Court lane pay a very small amount for his freehold while a less affluent tenant, who may buy from Southwark borough council, has to pay a much higher sum for the freehold? I am not endorsing one scheme or the other at present, but why penalise the less well-off leaseholder?

Sir George Young: The main anomaly is that some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich are excluded from the right-to-buy provisions. Any amendment to remove that major anomaly may, in turn, create others. However, the answer is that we want to do what we can to meet the fears expressed by charitable freeholders. We do not want to deny their tenants the right to buy. We feel that this modest concession may make it easier for the charitable freeholders to accept what the Government are doing. I believe that we have a reasonable compromise proposal.
The Lords amendment would dash the hopes of many tenants who have been counting on clause 1 for almost two years now, and that would be a devastating blow for them. Our proposals respect the aspirations of such tenants, but at the same time try to make a genuine response to the concern of the freeholders. I believe that that is the right course. We have given a clear commitment on this issue, and I ask the House to accept the Government's amendments.

Mr. Chris Smith: I rise to disagree with the Government's view and to agree with that of the other place. The Minister said that it was wholly accidental that some tenants happened to be tenants where the freehold was held by a charity and the leasehold was held by the local authority or housing association. From the tenant's point of view that is the case, but from that of the charity it is not. It is not wholly accidental that the charity came to make that land available in that form in the first place, and therein lies the crux of the argument.
We must consider why the charity made the land available to the housing association or local authority in the first place. In the case of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges and the Dulwich college estate, as well as in other cases, it is quite probable that the charity made the land available on the assumption that the housing would be available to tenants in the public sector or, in necessitous circumstances, to those belonging to a housing association. It was deliberately not made available for individual purchasing. The charity that owned the land made that decision when it made the land available.
That point is clearly made in the letter from the Association of Land-owning Charities, which states:
The charity has been ready to assist the association by providing land that it would not have let to a commercial developer; it took account both of housing need and of the fact: that the land would not be exposed to the risk of enfranchisement".
That is clearly a twofold reason for a charity making land available in that way. It does so first because it sees that housing needs must be met, and it wants them to be met by rented housing, and, secondly, because it does not wish to see the land and the dwellings on it enfranchised.
For those reasons, we must look carefully at the Government's proposals in overturning the Lord's amendment. In Committee, the case was discussed at some length. There was an example in my constituency where the land on which dwellings were constructed, and a proportion of the building costs, were made available by a particular company. We discussed the case in some detail. Those dwellings will not, of course, be affected by the clause, because the company concerned is not a charity. However, the principle is the same. The intention behind the grant of money by Whitbread and the grant of land or building space was that the provision of local authority rented accommodation should be assisted.
If the Lord's amendment is rejected, we must ask whether charities will not reasonably feel that their original reasons for making land available have been abrogated. It is not in their interests that they should be overturned. The offer of compensation in the Government's amendments—the so-called compromise—is not enough to offer in return for overturning that basic principle on which the land was made available in the first instance.
The clause will not only affect land that has already been made available by charities. Its impact will undoubtedly be considered by charities in future that may otherwise have considered making land available to housing associations or local authorities. Because the Government have removed the qualification put in by the other place, those charities will think twice in future before making land available for rented housing in that form. If the Government are successful tonight those charities will no longer be able to guarantee that the land and the dwellings on it will always be occupied by tenants and will not necessarily be enfranchised.
The Government could have taken an easy way out instead of offering the package that they are apparently offering, of some supposed compromise of compensation. They have just won a vote on giving charitable housing association tenants the right to claim. That right is not enshrined in the Bill, it will simply be an administrative measure which will make available to the tenants of charitable housing associations a sum to purchase a dwelling in the private sector. Why did not the Government come up with the same scheme for tenants who are affected by being tenants of dwellings where charities are the freeholder? If the Government are logical in their intentions towards the tenants of charitable housing associations, why did they not come up with the same scheme in this instance? It would be useful to have some answer on that from the Government.
Why are the Government not consistent about a Government-inspired decision in the other place, which the Government are asking us to approve tonight under the new schedule to be inserted after schedule 6 which gives grounds for the so-called right to exchange, which we shall discuss later? Ground six for exclusion from right to exchange excludes people who are tenants of a landlord which is a charity. If the right to exchange is not good enough for tenants of a charity, why are the Government coming forward with right-to-buy proposals not just for tenants of charitable housing associations but for tenants where the freeholder is a charity and the leaseholder is a local authority or a housing association?
We must ask the Government about that point because they genuinely appear to be inconsistent. For various

simple reasons—the purpose which originally made the land available for rented housing; discouragement on future occasions when land may be made available for rented housing; and because the Government do not appear to be consistent in putting forward their case this afternoon—we must ask the Government to justify their case much more fully and convincingly than they have. If they do not, we must beg to disagree.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I welcome the amendment warmly on behalf of some 2,000 tenants of Southwark council living in Dulwich who would like the opportunity to buy their homes. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in an intervention, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in his speech, allowed their remarks to stray into Dulwich, and demonstrated their ignorance and misunderstanding of the problem.
The position is really quite simple. There are in Dulwich some 2,000 tenants of Southwark borough council. Southwark is the landlord but not the freeholder of the land on which the dwellings are situated. The freeholder is the Dulwich college estate, but that is in some sense a technicality because the leases are long. In fact they are long, long leases. In many cases they have more than 180 years to run. The ground rent is nominal and the tenants wish to buy the properties. In 1980 they thought that the Housing Act would give them that right but they found that they were defeated on a technicality—the fact that Southwark was not the freeholder.
Southwark borough council has set its face like granite against the sale of any of its properties. It wishes to maintain its tenants in municipal feudal serfdom. It will be unwilling to change unless it is forced to do and it has used every technicality that it can to avoid such sale.
The solution is simple. A simple legislative change would do it and that was introduced and would have become law had there not been a general election last year, thus causing the Bill to fall. But the tenants were reassured that the measure would be reintroduced early in the new Parliament and it was. It passed through this House with its good will and good wishes but it stumbled on an obstacle in another place. In tabling its amendment, I think that the other place was motivated by good intentions, but there were unforeseen consequences. In an effort to protect a particular interest it caused detriment to many tenants who might otherwise have expected to be able to buy. The amendment that was proposed and made in another place was far too broad in its sweep. It was a constitutional sledgehammer to make a delicate legislative adjustment.
6.15 pm
Hon. Members may understand the disappointment, bitterness and resentment that is felt by so many of the tenants in Dulwich of the leasehold properties when they find that they have yet again had their aspirations dashed by some technicality or misunderstanding of the position. There is a clear injustice which can be righted and we have the opportunity this afternoon to do so.
I was struck by the speeches from the Opposition Benches when hon. Members addressed themselves to an earlier amendment. They dwelt upon the sense of injustice in another area. They have an opportunity this afternoon to demonstrate where their sense of justice lies by supporting the amendment now.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of amendment (c)? Whose side does he take there — Dulwich college or his tenants?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman raises a different matter. If the tenants of Southwark council were direct lessees of the Dulwich college estate they would have the right to buy under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The fact that they happen to be council tenants where their landlord is the leaseholder denies them that right. It means that they are between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are like the sailor in the picture, sitting between two women and thinking, "How happy could I be with either were t'other fair charmer away." If they were direct tenants of Dulwich college they would have the right to buy. If Southwark council, whose tenants they are, were the freeholder, they would have the right to buy. They are denied that right. That is why I press upon the hon. Member for Norwood that he demonstrates his sense of justice by voting for the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: For the benefit of myself and the South London Press, although we beg to differ about the main amendment, does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that under amendment (c), if the tenants get a lease from Southwark borough council and then want to buy the freehold, they will have to pay the full discounted value of the bricks and mortar as opposed to the price that would be paid by his more affluent constituents who are not former tenants of Southwark borough council and who only have to pay the value of the land? In that situation, does he favour his tenants or Dulwich college?

Mr. Bowden: I am speaking this afternoon for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, and for the benefit of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, the South London Press and its readers may get some benefit as well. However, the technicality which the hon. Gentleman raises is one that I cannot be expected to answer off the cuff. I recognise that there is a real point there and I hope that all my tenants, whether direct or otherwise, have the opportunity to buy their freehold interests at a fair market price. We have a duty to right this injustice, and I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am the third hon. Member in succession whose political fortunes are not unaffected by the view taken of them by the South London Press.
We differ from the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) in that we are at the north end of the borough of Southwark and do not have the green open spaces that surround some of the properties about which he talked and which are owned by Dulwich College Estates.
I sympathise with the tenants of Southwark in wishing to escape from the present administration, which is not often favourable to any of its tenants. However, it is not right that that pragmatism should override the principle of the proper use of charitable land.
One of the problems of this debate is that we have no figures of the number of tenants affected. I accept the figures given by the hon. Member for Dulwich of those affected on this estate, but we do not know the numbers affected elsewhere. The remedy is to deal with the problem in the way in which it is dealt with, as a matter of co-operation, between Dulwich College Estates, the borough council and, if necessary, this House and which provides for proper, well-spelt-out compensation, if that is agreeable to Dulwich College Estates.
There is in Southwark all too little land available for housing from a charitable source and by charitable designation and it would be sad if the land about which we are talking, even if not in 50 or 100 years' time—I accept that the lease is enormously long—were to be lost from a housing purpose or open space designation to some other use.
It would be wrong for the pragmatic approach in this instance to override what is clearly a matter of principle. As my noble Friend Lord Evans said in another place, here we have charities providing land for housing and not providing land which ultimately they intend should be sold. That was the intention, and the principle of a charitable association and of charitable designation s that the purposes of the charity should be fulfilled.
Running into a minor obstacle—or however one might descibe what happened in another place—is hardly what happened. The voting in the other place on this amendment was 157 for and 77 against the Bill in its present form. The Government had more than twice as many voting against as for them. Therefore, an obligation falls roundly on them to justify wishing to reverse what the legislative process has made clear is its view, and that they have not done.
There may be solutions available to the tenants of Southwark who are resident on land which will eventually revert to Dulwich College Estates. However, this is not the way to deal with the matter because it goes against the whole purpose for which that land was provided for housing. We shall therefore join those opposing the Government's attempt to reverse what was clearly seen by the other place a few weeks ago to be unprincipled.

Mr. John Fraser: Once again the Opposition find themselves on the side of the other place. The reason for that was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). If the Lords amendment is defeated, charities which own land will be less likely in future to make that land available to local authorities for housing purposes. They will choose instead to make it available to charitable housing associations and thus preserve themselves from what they regard as the perils of enfranchisement. We should do nothing which might cut off the supply of valuable land for those in the greatest housing need.
By amendment (c) to the Lords amendment the Minister is introducing an anomaly which he will live to regret. Delegations will be calling on the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden)—perhaps I should say that they will be going to see him or his Labour successor—in exactly the same way as they came in 1964 and 1965 to complain about the leasehold laws.
If the Government have their way and there is enfranchisement, there will be one class of less affluent lessees in Dulwich and thereabouts who will have to pay a high price to Dulwich college to buy their freeholds, whereas their more affluent neighbours with leases from another source will have to pay only the value of the [and. That will be seen in years to come as a monstrous inequity as between one and another, something which this House will eventually set right by amending legislation
It is interesting to note that when local authorities strongly argue a housing case, their argument is rejected by the Government. But if prestigious charities such as Dulwich college, Oxford or Cambridge come with an argument to the Government, it is accepted. There is one


rule for Labour local authorities and another for the privileged charities, and as between the two I know whose side I am on.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 138.

Division No. 249]
[6.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fox, Marcus


Aitken, Jonathan
Franks, Cecil


Alexander, Richard
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Galley, Roy


Ancram, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Arnold, Tom
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Ashby, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gorst, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gow, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Baldry, Anthony
Gregory, Conal


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bellingham, Henry
Grist, Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Ground, Patrick


Berry, Sir Anthony
Grylls, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Body, Richard
Hanley, Jeremy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harvey, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayes, J.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hayhoe, Barney


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayward, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brinton, Tim
Henderson, Barry


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hickmet, Richard


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Browne, John
Hill, James


Bruinvels, Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hooson, Tom


Buck, Sir Antony
Howard, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Burt, Alistair
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, W. S.
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, John
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cranborne, Viscount
Kilfedder, James A.


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Knox, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Farr, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Anthony
Lester, Jim


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael





Luce, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lyell, Nicholas
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCusker, Harold
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David John
Silvester, Fred


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Major, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malone, Gerald
Speller, Tony


Maples, John
Spencer, Derek


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Mellor, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Merchant, Piers
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Miscampbell, Norman
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Newton, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steven
Trippier, David


Onslow, Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Philip
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ottaway, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, John (Harrow W)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waddington, David


Parris, Matthew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pollock, Alexander
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powley, John
Watson, John


Price, Sir David
Watts, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Whitney, Raymond


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Michael


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Ryder, Richard





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bruce, Malcolm


Ashdown, Paddy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barron, Kevin
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bell, Stuart
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Benn, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Coleman, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett, Robin






Corbyn, Jeremy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Craigen, J. M.
McCartney, Hugh


Crowther, Stan
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McGuire, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
McNamara, Kevin


Deakins, Eric
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Michie, William


Douglas, Dick
Mikardo, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Nellist, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Brien, William


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Faulds, Andrew
Pavitt, Laurie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pendry, Tom


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Randall, Stuart


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


George, Bruce
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Robertson, George


Godman, Dr Norman
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Golding, John
Ryman, John


Gould, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sheerman, Barry


Hardy, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hoyle, Douglas
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Torney, Tom


Janner, Hon Greville
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Wareing, Robert


John, Brynmor
Weetch, Ken


Johnston, Russell
White, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Winnick, David


Kirkwood, Archibald
Woodall, Alec


Leighton, Ronald
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)



Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Tellers for the Noes:


Litherland, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments No. 1 disagreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof:

(a), in schedule 10, page 83, line 6, leave out 'shared ownership lease' and insert
lease in pursuance of Part I of this Act'.

(b), in schedule 10, page 83, line 16, leave out 'shared ownership lease' and insert
'lease in pursuance of Part I of this Act'.

(c), in schedule 10, page 83, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) Where, in the case of a tenancy to which this subparagraph applies, the tenant or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy exercises his right to acquire the freehold under Part I of the said Act of 1967, the price payable for the dwelling-house shall be determined in accordance with section 9(1A) of that Act notwithstanding that the rateble value of the dwelling-house does not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £500 elsewhere.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) above applies to


(a) a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act;
(b) a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967; and
(c) where in any case that Part applies as if there had been a single tenancy granted for a term beginning at the same time as the term under a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above and expiring at the same time as the term under a later tenancy, that later tenancy.'.—[Sir George Young.]

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 9, after "of" insert "not less than".

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3, 8, 9, 20, 22, 24 to 27, 31, 47, 49, 52 to 61, 72, 73, 89, 90, 96 to 100, 106, 115 to 121, 125, 139, 141 to 151, 157 to 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 to 171, 175 to 178, 180, 181, 183 to 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197 to 200, 207, 209, 211, 212 and 214.

Mr. Gow: This is a formidable looking group of amendments. They are, however, all of a technical nature with no policy implications. They deal with minor drafting improvements and the correction of printing or cross-referencing errors. If any hon. Member would like a further explanation of them, I should be happy to give that.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

VARIATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH RIGHT DOES NOT ARISE

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 14, at beginning insert
Subsection (5) of section 2 of the 1980 Act (exceptions to the right to buy) shall be omitted and

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7, 10, 15, 65 to 71, 87, 201 and 215.

Mr. Gow: When the Bill left this House, it contained a number of provisions to extend security of tenure and the right to buy to certain county council tenants, and to make certain associated changes to the rules currently governing the status of tenancies held by district councils under other than general housing powers.
In introducing the amendments on Report, I said that we would discuss the details of the proposals with the local authority associations. These amendments were all proposed in response to points raised by the associations. The effect of these amendments is to restrict the right to buy in some circumstances as compared with the original proposals to which the House agreed on Report.
I wish briefly to explain the changes that have been made in another place. First, the associations brought to our attention the fact that a few dwellings were sited within cemeteries and were not necessarily let to staff on terms that excluded the tenancy from security of tenure under


paragraph 2 of schedule 3 of the 1980 Act. We accept that landlords should not lose control over the occupation of such dwellings.
Secondly, the associations explained a number of cases where voluntary aided school staff were housed by the local education authority. Because the landlord is not the employer in these cases, the exclusions originally envisaged do not operate. Amendment No. 10 therefore adds the governors of voluntary aided schools to the definition of employer for the purpose of paragraph 2 of schedule 3 to the 1980 Act. Amendment No. 87 proposes various additions to and refinements of the categories of dwellings which are to be excluded from security of tenure under schedule 3 to the 1980 Act.
I shall briefly mention one aspect of amendment No. 64, part of which is relevant in the context of the right to exchange and is to be taken with that group of amemdments. This provides for a new ground of possession applying where a dwelling is within the curtilage of an operational building and where any person has been guilty of conduct
such that, having regard to the purpose for which the building is used, it would not be right for him to continue in occupation".
There will be cases where an employee housed within, for example, social service or educational premises, is guilty of behaviour which could put at risk the safety of children or of social service clients occupying the premises. Cases where a school employee is found guilty of child assault may be rare, but, unfortunately, they happen. In such cases, it is important that the person concerned does not continue to reside on the premises. This ground for possession will enable landlords to take action in such cases. They can regain possession, provided that the court is satisfied that the tenant, or other occupant of the dwelling, has been guilty of relevant misconduct.
Those are small but important amendments to what we had proposed in excluding certain "operational" dwellings from security of tenure and the right to buy. These amendments are made in response to points made by the associations and will be helpful in protecting landlords' interests where dwellings are required for genuine operational purposes.
I remind hon. Members of the dwellings that will continue to be excluded from the right to buy, not only under the effects of the 1980 Act but under the Bill in the form in which we propose it should be enacted. Those dwellings include, first, those let to an employee who is required to live in that dwelling under his contract of employment for the better performance of his duties; secondly, dwellings on land acquired for development and used as temporary housing accommodation pending development; thirdly, dwellings let for up to one year to a person moving to an area for employment reasons; fourthly, dwellings comprising part of an agricultural holding which was occupied by the person responsible for the control of the farming of the holding; fifthly, dwellings provided to members of a police force under the Police Regulations 1979; sixthly, dwellings let to firemen as a consequence of a condition of their contract of employment that states that they live in close proximity to the fire station at which they work; seventhly, other dwellings to which exclusions in categories which I have mentioned—the first, fifth and sixth—would normally

apply, but which are let otherwise for up to three years; eighthly, dwellings let to employees that are within the curtilage of operation——

Mr. John Fraser: Frankly, I cannot understand paragraph 2C of amendment No. 87 which refers to "three years". Will security of tenure be denied when, say, a fireman's dwelling is let not to a fireman but to somebody else for a period of not more than three years? Is that what lies behind the amendment?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
Finally, dwellings within a cemetery which are let to employees are excluded also from the right to buy.
The amendments restrict the extension of the right to buy which we had proposed when the Bill was last before the House on Report in December. I believe that the amendments meet the reasonable representations made to us by the associations.

Mr. John Fraser: I shall discuss not the right to buy but the matter of security under amendment No. 87. I know that the House wants to make progress. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is not in the Chamber, my inhibitions about raising this matter have slightly lessened.
I refer to housing for firemen, not least because during most of my youth I lived in a house in close proximity to a fire station. I understand why the Minister wants to deny a secure tenancy to someone who lives close to a fire station, because that is an essential requirement of his job. The Minister should remember that people such as firemen may spend 25 to 30 years living in close proximity to their work. Under this amendment, they will have no security of tenure. There may be practical reasons for imposing that condition upon their tenure, but it is wrong that they do not have the opportunity to go to other accommodation if they cease to be employed as firemen or retire.
It might be better to enable them to continue as secure tenants without a right to buy, and the local authorities could obtain possession from them by offering suitable alternative accommodation. That would be a better solution than having tied tenancy accommodation. It is right to provide for them when their period with a fire brigade comes to an end. The same circumstances apply to policemen. Will the Minister, even at this late stage, offer a solution administratively, if in no other way?
What will happen to firemen living in close proximity to a fire station when the GLC and metropolitan counties are abolished? This is an important matter. Who will be their landlord? What will be their accommodation arrangements, if the proposals in "Streamlining the Cities" go through?

Mr. Gow: It is not possible at this stage of the consideration, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to propose any further amendments. I shall consider his suggestion about dealing administratively with the point raised about firemen. The GLC is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall discuss the hon. Gentleman's proposals with my right hon. Friend and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 3, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—


"(a) the dwelling-house has had those features since it was constructed, or it is a dwelling-house in which one or more of the following alterations have been carried out by the landlord, or the predecessor in title of the landlord, to meet the needs of a disabled person or persons—

(i) the extension of the dwelling-house by the provision of one or more additional rooms;
(ii) the construction of an additional bathroom with a water closet;
(iii) the removal or relocation of internal walls in conjunction with the relocation of a bathroom, fixed bath or shower or water closet;
(iv) the installation of a fixed vertical passenger lift;
(v) an increase in excess of 7·5 square metres in the floor area of the dwelling-house;
and in this paragraph "constructed" includes the provision of a separate dwelling-house by sub-division of an existing structure and the meaning of "predecessor" is restricted to a local authority, a development corporation, the Commission for the New Towns of a registered housing association;

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the Government amendments in lieu and to words restored, Lords amendment No. 12 and Government amendment to words restored, Lords amendment No. 13 and Government amendments thereto, and Lords amendment No. 16.

Mr. Gow: I hasten to say that the Government are accepting the principle of the amendments made in another place, as is clear from the amendments that appear in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I remind the House of the issues underlying this group of amendments. Under paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the 1980 Act, the right to buy is excluded where
The dwelling-house has features which are substantially different from those of ordinary dwelling-houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons.
When the Bill left the House, the right to buy for the disabled was extended to houses that had been adapted for the disabled since construction. The disabled were to be excluded from the right to buy in two circumstances only—where the dwelling had been purpose-built, and where the dwelling was one of a group of dwellings which it was the practice of the landlord to let to the disabled and a social service or special facilities were provided in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses. Those proposals were substantially modified in another place in an amendment moved by Lord Ingleby. The effect of the amendment—Lords amendment No. 11 in the marshalled list—was to provide for the continued exclusion from the right to buy of dwellings that have been the subject of certain specified major adaptations.
The House knows that it is the Government's conviction that as many tenants as possible should have the right to buy, and we would not wish to deny that right to the physically disabled or, indeed, to any other category of tenant without very good reason. The House knows also that we had come to the view that the denial of the right to buy to disabled tenants in adapted properties imposes an additional disadvantage on those who already suffer the disadvantage of disablement and that -it was a denial that could not be justified. In this the Government were

influenced by the many letters that we received from disabled tenants complaining of the injustice inherent in the present arrangements.
I shall quote from a letter which was received from a tenant living in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). About two years after the 1980 act had come into operation, he wrote:
we are the parents of a severely handicapped … daughter, who is now aged 32. We occupy a bungalow which we have rented from Macclesfield Borough Council since it was built in 1975, and I have made two applications over the past two years to buy this property. On both occasions I have received a very formal reply refusing this application on the grounds that 'this dwelling has features which are substantially different from those of ordinary dwelling-houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons.' … I agree, of course it has—that is why we applied for a. It was necessary.
Without going into any lengthy details, it has 2 bedrooms, a shower-bath … and wider doors to enable the use of a wheelchair—the Council considers this to be 'substantial' ! What would be the minimum number of bedrooms required for a man and wife with a handicapped daughter? The shower was installed simply because it is far easier for my wife to bath her in the shower as she cannot lift herself into and out of the bath unless she has physical assistance … my daughter cannot negotiate stairs or steps, so consequently a bungalow is a must!
I wish especially to draw the next section of the letter to the attention of the House. The letter continues:
The biggest 'substantial' addition was an extension I personally had built on to our kitchen which overlooks a small garden, and the reason for this is because my daughter can sit there to see people passing by … this extension cost me £600 … and the Council have approved same providing I paid for it in full".
In a later paragraph the author writes:
It is grossly unfair, as everyone should have the same rights legally afforded and given them by Parliament. I feel this is a case of obstruction, delay and furthermore ever-increasing personal anxiety. Purchase would provide some financial security for my daughter when the time comes when my wife and I are no longer around.
It was in order to respond to representations of the sort which I have recounted and to others that we submitted our proposals. I still believe that a tenant in the situation that I have described should have the right to buy, and whether he has that right should not depend on the nature of the adaptation carried out to his home, especially when disabled owner-occupiers can receive improvement grants of £10,000 and sometimes even more——

Mr. John Fraser: Not any longer.

Mr. Gow: They are eligible.

Mr. Fraser: Not since the Government cut the grant.

Mr. Gow: That is an unworthy remark from the hon. Gentleman. He will know that in the year ended 31 March 1983 the total spent on improvement grants was £430 million. In the year ended 31 March 1984 we estimate that total spending on improvement grants will be double that for the previous year. The hon. Gentleman sees fit to criticise the Government's level of spending on improvement grants when in the last year of the previous Labour Government's term of office the spending was £90 million.

Mr. Heffer: The Labour Government were building houses.

Mr. Gow: The comment of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) shows significant hypocrisy.

Mr. Heffer: We were building council houses, but this Government are not.

Mr. Gow: I allowed myself to be diverted by the intervention of the hon. Member for Norwood. I have explained what my views are but I must recognise that strong views have been expressed by those in another place. These are views that I know are shared by Opposition Members and, possibly, by some of my hon. Friends. I respect the views expressed by Lord Ingleby in another place; I respect the views of another place; I respect the views of Opposition Members who disagree with me on this issue and I respect also the views of my hon. Friends who disagree with me. The Government believe that it is right to take into account the views that are expressed in another place. The Government have therefore decided to accept the substance of the amendment moved by Lord Ingleby. Amendment (b) simplifies the list of adaptations which will result in exclusion from the right to buy, but the result is essentially the same as that approved in another place.
I welcome the Opposition's agreement to our new definition of sheltered housing for the elderly and the mentally disordered. Such housing will, of course, continue to be excluded from the right to buy. Since the new definition was added to the Bill we have decided that we should clarify whether the social services or special facilities referred to in the definition are to be exclusively or primarily for the benefit of a particular sheltered housing scheme.
We think that in the case of housing for the elderly that should be so. Access to a general community centre would not be sufficient, hence amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 13. In the case of sheltered housing for the physically disabled and the mentally handicapped, however, we accept that facilities which serve others in the community—for instance a day centre for the disabled or a psychiatric unit—could also support a nearby sheltered housing scheme for the physically disabled or the mentally disordered. Hence the insertion of the phrase "wholly or partly" at line 9 of the amendment and at page 3, line 11.
Finally, to meet a further point raised by Lord Ingleby, we are providing at page 3, line 6 that the exemption from the right to buy which applies to purpose-built accommodation for the disabled should extend to cases where new dwellings have been created by the conversion of existing premises.
I hope that the House will think that we have taken proper account of the views expressed in another place. Some of my hon. Friends may think that we have gone too far in recognising the strength of feeling which was expressed by their Lordships. It is only after the most careful consideration that the Government have decided to proceed in the way that I have outlined.

7 pm

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I am sad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is recommending the acceptance of the Lords amendment. I welcomed my hon. Friend's decision in the original version of the Bill to extend the right to buy to the disabled.
What has been done in another place is much more serious than appears at first sight. The original Bill gave the disabled the right to buy unless the council house had been purpose-built for the disabled. But another place has removed the right to buy if that house has been extensively modified for disabled people, even if the local council

would have carried out those modifications for a disabled person who had already exercised the right to buy. It removes the right even if those modifications would have been carried out had the tenant lived in a private house. That is wrong. It turns disabled people into second-class citizens in the sense that they are being penalised for being disabled.
I welcome the amendment, however, as it gives the right to buy to disabled people in several important cases. I raised with the Minister a case concerning a man who is genuinely called Mr. Smith. The council had installed a chair lift in his house because he is disabled. Later he asked to exercise his right to buy, but was told that he could not do so because his house had been modified for the disabled. He offered to buy the chair lift, to pay the full cost of fitting it or to pay for the chair lift to be taken out, if he could have the right to buy. The council turned down his application. My constituent was penalised solely because he is disabled. In my opinion, that was a case of a council trying to deprive someone of the right to buy on far from genuine grounds.

Sir Hugh Rossi: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I had an identical case in my constituency. As that practice occurs in London as well as in the High Peak, it seems to be universal among some local authorities which wish to deny people the right to buy at every opportunity.

Mr. Hawkins: I should have preferred the original provisions but my second choice would be that modifications should not be made to homes by the council, whether or not the right to buy had been exercised, or whether the disabled person was living in private accommodation.
I am delighted—I think—by the fact that my constituent Mr. Smith will have the right to buy under the amended clause. Can the Minister confirm my understanding of amendment (b) which says that the right to buy will be denied if a vertical lift has been fitted? I should like to know whether "vertical lift" means a purpose-built lift of the passenger type. Will that provision deny the right to buy to those disabled people who have merely a fitted chair lift that goes up the side of the stairs and is relatively cheap to install? That is the sort of lift in my constituent's case. Provided that the Minister confirms that, I shall at least partially welcome what is left of the original clause.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Earlier in the debate it was suggested that quotations from the Lords should be paraphrased. That seems to be a better temporary alternative to abolition in view of the speeches heard so far. The House and the country owe a debt of gratitude to the other place for preventing a dangerous step.
About three years ago I presented a petition to the House asking the Government not to proceed with the sale of disabled persons' dwellings and elderly persons' bungalows and flats. The petition was circulated in Rotherham, where it attracted much support across the political spectrum. It was recognised that if old persons' dwellings were sold some of them would soon be occupied by young people. In my area, as in many others, the aged are in the most desperate need of homes. If special dwellings were sold, fewer homes would be available for occupation by the elderly.
My local authority is not dogmatic, as I think the Minister will agree now that he has had had time to consider the records and attitudes of English housing authorities. All the authorities in my area were Labour-controlled before local Government reorganisation and several of them were selling council houses. Those sales ceased in 1974 because we recognised that in some parts of Rotherham there was a severe housing need. It was felt that we could not sell any more houses until we had broken the back of the housing problem, clearance was completed, and waiting lists were generally, instead of partially, reduced. That policy was perhaps the result of the experience of Rotherham's housing chairman. The Minister may have met him. He is the most senior housing chairman in Britain. He has enormous experience and pioneered the provision of sheltered housing for the elderly. His assessment of the matter was based on experience rather than dogma. He believed that the Government's original course was extremely dangerous.
The majority of people in Rotherham, certainly those in the Wentworth constituency, believe that the Government have concentrated on entirely the wrong housing targets in the past three years. It is gratifying to know that the Government will not pursue their original insistence, but they have not gone far enough in reflecting as generously as they could the commonsense shown by another place.
I tabled a question last week that was more significant than many questions, but which was, sadly, ignored by the media. I asked the Minister what proportion of Britain's housing stock had been cleared, demolished and replaced last year. His answer was "a one-thousandth". If we consider that answer carefully it means that the average property in Britain today will, based on present rates of housing investment, still be standing in more than 500 years time. The properties were not built to last that long. The Government should be attending to that sort of problem instead of ignoring the country's absolute needs.
I welcome the modest improvement that was effected in the other place. I recognise that local authorities will face a severe problem in ensuring, as Rotherham borough councillors have always done, that they comply with the law. They will have to scratch their heads to work out whether an elderly person's home is one that can be sold, given the complexities of the relevant rules.
Our problem in Rotherham is that we are not allowed or encouraged to build as many homes as we need, especially homes for the elderly. If only one bungalow for the elderly is lost under the proposals, even though they have been improved in the other place, we shall be effecting a serious disturbance. I want people to be encouraged to own their homes. I could have been moved by the Minister's example, which was reflected to some extent in the intervention by his hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins). It would be nice to allow disabled people to live in their own homes. No one could object to the disabled person to whom the Minister referred owning his own home.
I hope that the Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) will concede that the second, third or fourth tenant of a home—built perhaps at great public cost for a disabled person—will not be disabled. That could mean that other disabled persons will not have the chance to be a tenant, let alone an owner-occupier. Therefore, the second, third and fourth disabled person must be taken into account as well as the first.

Mr. Gow: It may help the hon. Gentleman if I remind him that purpose-built accommodation for the disabled remains excluded from the right to buy.

Mr. Hardy: I was, perhaps inaccurately, defending the Minister from those of his hon. Friends who would not have adopted quite the position that he has gracefully adopted this evening.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I happily accept the position on purpose-built accommodation. That has also been my position for a long time. I also accept the removal of the right to buy if expensive modifications have been made to cater for several generations of disabled tenants. However, I do not accept the removal of the right to buy when the modifications are relatively minor and would have been made for a disabled person even if he had been a home owner.

Mr. Hardy: I shall not pursue that point, except to say that since the original proposals were introduced I have been concerned to ensure that some of the very expensive houses built by local authorities to accommodate the severely disabled should remain in public ownership so that the severely disabled can continue to live in them. The investment in such properties is too large to waste, nor should others who are not disabled be allowed to enjoy it.
I am delighted that these amendments have come forward, just as I am delighted that the Minister does not intend to go so far as some of his more reactionary hon. Friends. The modest concessions that have been won by efforts in the other place will be welcomed by Rotherham, but I do not think that anyone in Rotherham, certainly not the hon. Member for Wentworth, feels that they go far enough.

Mr. John Butterfill: I hope that I will not be thought of as one of the Minister's reactionary hon. Friends, but I am pleased that I have been called to speak at this juncture in our proceedings.
For many years I have worked hard for charities connected with the disabled, and I have the disabled in particular in my mind. I am afraid that we may have gone too far in the further amendments that we are now making as a result of the amendments made in another place, because we may well have put the disabled at a considerable disadvantage.
The wording approved by the Standing Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, closely followed the wording that existed in the Scottish Act. The Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 states in section 1(11)(c):
where a dwelling-house is one of a group which has been provided with facilities (including a call system and the services of a warden) specially designed or adapted for the needs of elderly or disabled persons.
The Scottish Act has worked very well, and there has been little or no complaint about its operation. However, we are now proposing to put disabled tenants in England and Wales at a disadvantage compared with disabled tenants in Scotland, and I fail to see why they should be put at such a disadvantage.
We must look carefully at the proposed new amendments arising from representations in another place. Amendment (a) follows precisely schedule 1 to the 1980 Act—an Act that has been comprehensively abused by local authorities which have been determined to deny the right to buy to disabled people. Amendment (b), in offering further protection, states:


The landlord or a predecessor of the landlord has carried out, for the purpose of making the dwelling-house suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons, one or more of the following alterations, namely—

(a) the provision of not less than 7·5 square metres of additional floor space".
7.15 pm
As a chartered surveyor, I am very familiar with what 7·5 sq m is. Other hon. Members may like to know that it comprises approximately 80·7 sq ft, or a room approximately 10 ft x 8 ft external measurement and probably 9 ft x 7 ft internal measurement. It is not a very big room.
The amendment also refers to:
the provision of an additional bathroom or shower-room.
I suggest that the 9 ft x7 ft room probably is an additional bathroom or shower-room. The amendment also refers to:
the installation of a vertical lift.
How will those local authorities that may wish to thwart the purposes of the Bill interpret that? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will probably agree that in his constituency it is possible to find houses with an external bath house and where, to suit the disabled, and extra bathroom may have been added, usually on the ground floor and off the back of the kitchen. Effectively we are saying that if we add a bathroom off the back of the kitchen to an old property with an external bath house, that tenant will be denied the right to buy. That is extraordinary, but it is a consequence of what we are proposing.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has touched on the precise point that concerns me. It does not have to be an old house with an outside khazi, but merely a prewar council house that is planned for modernisation. Deliberately, the design of that modification will include an extension at the back, and consequently, such houses will not be available for purchase because the council will say, "Ah, they are suitable for the disabled." I am particularly concerned at that back-door method of getting around the Bill, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that precise point so ably.

Mr. Butterfill: We may well have gone too far. On balance I welcome what we are doing, but we may not be doing the disabled a service. We should not impose a further disability on those who are already disabled.

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles: I thank the Chair for allowing me to make a brief contribution.
I am somewhat surprised that Opposition Members are supporting the amendment, which increases still further the number of disabled families who will be prevented from exercising the right to buy. It is not long since the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was ardently supported on the Labour Benches when he attempted to bring in legislation to outlaw discrimination against the disabled, yet discrimination against the disabled would be increased by the Opposition amendment.
A number of so-called disabled persons' dwellings were built with what today would be considered minimal additional facilities. They have been further adapted by the families of the disabled people concerned to meet their individual needs. The greatest worry of parents of

handicapped children is what will happen to their children when the parents are no longer alive. If the parents of disabled children are able to purchase their homes for them, it will be much more likely that, when the parents die, other members of the family will take on the responsibility and move in to the disabled person's home. That would apply if it was the disabled person who was the owner of the dwelling. If, however, the disabled person is living in a council-owned property and other members of his family move in to look after him, those family members will be required to vacate that house when he dies because it is a special dwelling.
There have been three cases in my constituency almost identical to those described by my hon. Friend. The parents are desperately anxious to ensure that their disabled children will have security after they die. They are anxious that the house should be in the ownership of the disabled person, so that other family members will be able to move in and support him. The alternative might be that the disabled person would have to go into a disabled persons' home and be looked after by the local authority.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, many owner-occupiers have received considerable grants for adapting a property to suit the individual needs of a disabled person, without any restriction on resale being imposed. The owner can have a Government grant one year and choose to sell the house the next.
This is a clear case of discrimination against the disabled. Thousands of people enjoy the right to buy under the present legislation. To stop those who have a disabled person in their family from buying is discrimination. I am surprised that Opposition Members support such an amendment.
I was to some extent comforted when my hon. Friend pointed out that the Government would seek to give the right to buy to as many people as possible and would not wish to discriminate against the disabled.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Would it be better to discriminate against those disabled people who have no property adapted to their needs—there are many who are on the waiting lists for such property, from whatever source it may come—or to discriminate against the already more advantaged who live in adapted property? The hon. Gentleman must accept that the other place and a majority of right hon. and hon. Members of this House take the view that we must keep that balance in mind when deciding between those two forms of discrimination.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: That is a misunderstanding. The adapted house remains in existence. There is a restricted market for such houses, and if the disabled person died, the owners might have to find another family with a disabled member who wished to buy it. If they are prepared to take that risk and buy the house, they should be encouraged to do so. We should not forbid the families of disabled people to sell their homes to the families of other disabled people.
I regret that the Government have decided to increase the restrictions to be placed on the right to buy of disabled people. If the hon. Member for West Derby achieves his loudly proclaimed ambition and sees his legislation placed on the statute book, I wonder where this amendment will stand then. It is not with any great enthusiasm that I shall go into the Lobby to support the Government.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I understand that my hon. Friend found it necessary to make some concession to the views expressed in another place, but I regret that necessity. When I hear some of the expressions of opinions from the Opposition Benches, I do so with a feeling of irony. Only a month or so ago, Opposition Members were marching through the Lobby in support of a Bill which was supposed to remove discrimination against disabled people. Indeed, they have done so twice in about 12 months. Yet now they are expressing views which are pure, patent discrimination against the disabled. Where are those Labour Members who a few weeks ago were such great champions of the disabled and supported the private Member's Bill? Today they are prepared to support their Lordships in discriminating against the disabled.

Mr. Heffer: So is the Minister for Housing and Construction.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I have already expressed my regrets about the necessity for my hon. Friend to do so.
I ask Opposition Members to consider their own arguments. They have been saying that the disabled should not have the right to buy the accommodation in which they live because it has been adapted at considerable public expense. That argument could be carried to extremes. We could say that public transport should not be adapted to meet the needs of the disabled because that would incur considerable public expense. The only argument that has been advanced is that a council tenant who is disabled and who is living in a house that has been adapted at considerable public expense should not be able to buy that house.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's analogy is false. There is no question of transport being sold off. There is a need for the disabled to be treated like other people but there is no compensating provision of accommodation for those who would not otherwise have it, and the local authorities have a statutory duty to meet. The purchase of dwellings by the disabled would deprive others who have no guarantee that they would be able to have that sort of opportunity.

Sir Hugh Rossi: No two disabled people are alike in their disabilities. Adaptations to property made for one person would not necessarily match—indeed they are unlikely to match—the needs of another. If the hon. Gentleman envisages that the property would become available for other disabled people on the death of the disabled tenant, he is misleading himself. The property might have to undergo considerable further adaptation before a second disabled person could be accommodated. That argument will not run. The only argument that runs is that additional public money has been spent on adapting a particular house and that therefore its occupant should be denied the right to buy it.
If expense is the basis of the argument, we must be extremely careful, because the moment we introduce that element we are going down a logical path that ultimately precludes our helping disabled people in all other regards. We shall ultimately be saying that we must question how expensive everything will be. That is why I reject the Opposition's argument that we must not give disabled people the right to buy their council houses—and must therefore discriminate against them—because, at the bottom of it all, lies the item of expense.
I recognise why my hon. Friend the Minister has tried to accommodate the wishes of the other place but I regret that he has done so. He has given great strength to local authorities whose only objective is to deny the right to buy to as many people as possible for whatever reason or excuse. They are taking it out on disabled people to further that philosophy.

Mr. John Fraser: I resent the attack and slur that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has cast on local authorities.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I did not generally—I represent one that is bad.

Mr. Fraser: I am not being exactly immoderate. The Opposition are supporting the other place and an amendment which was tabled by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Opposition are hardly being dogmatic. I resent the hon. Gentleman's slur as I think that he will find that the authorities which make the greatest provision for disabled people in their housing programmes are also those whose proper judgment is that they would be doing the disabled a disservice by encouraging the sale of those houses.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Gentleman has already heard of the example of the chair lift and the tenant being prepared to pay the full cost of it on buying the house. Perhaps I might mention another case which involved the refusal of a local authority to sell when merely the plumbing was adapted to take a kidney machine.

Mr. Fraser: If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument he cannot have read the amendment.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I am talking about the mentality of local authorities.

Mr. Fraser: All we can do is discuss the amendments before us. We have before us a refined definition of a house that has been substantially adapted for the disabled. The other place's proposal excludes the disabled person's flat which has a chair lift. It must be a flat or house that has had a substantial adaptation. Many local authorities have put a great deal of money and effort into providing homes and I think that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will find that they tend to be Labour-controlled. This is not a case of discriminating against the disabled but of ensuring that provision for the less fortunate in the community is not lost. There is no doubt that when a house which has been designed or adapted substantially for the disabled is sold, it is lost to the community, the disabled and their successors.
Behind the amendment that was passed in another place lies the desire to ensure that the pool of accommodation that has been provided—admittedly at great expense—and involves major adaptation is preserved. The only possible motive for supporting the amendment is the desire to ensure that we protect the interests of present and future generations of disabled people. Nobody will be much disadvantaged by being denied the right to buy. The accommodation is not being taken away. We are preserving accommodation for future generations. That seems to be to the general advantage to society and to the disabled. That is why we support the other place. That is why—I have never done it before and I might never do it again—I even support the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister has got the balance right. We must consider the total number of residences to let that are suitable for the disabled and are available and their distribution. If we are to try to keep old people in the same environment as their children and grandchildren, it is necessary to have a small stock of residences suitable for disabled people and the elderly in each village. That is a sensible and humane thing to do. If that housing stock is lost, such people must be moved into the towns where they need far more warden attention as their families do not live nearby.
There is no perfect solution. I acknowledge that any decision which the House reaches will have its disadvantages for some people, but we should remember the people who are not fortunate enough to get any accomodation which is suitable for disabled people and are therefore needlessly condemned to living in hospital. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has come to this balanced compromise and I shall certainly support him.

Mr. Gow: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Gow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for his support—he was the only one of my hon. Friends who has supported the Government's decision. As I said earlier, my views on this matter have not changed since the House debated it at the end of 1983. It is a matter of judgment as to whether the exclusion of disabled people from the right to buy should go beyond purpose-built houses. It was the Government's view when the matter was last considered in this House that, apart from purpose-built and sheltered accommodation for the disabled, adapted homes should be subject to the right to buy. On balance, I believe that that view was right, but it is because we respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and the views of another place that we have decided to make this modification.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asked whether the installation of a chair lift would bring a home within the provisions of amendment (b). That amendment refers to the installation of a vertical lift. If the home has a vertical lift, the right to buy would be excluded, but if it has only a lift that goes up a stairway, such as my hon. Friend described, the right to buy will not be excluded.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). He directed part of his speech to the right to buy for the elderly. We shall deal with that soon. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) reminded the House that he is a chartered surveyor and said that a room of the size which is described in paragraph (a) of amendment (b) is likely to be an additional bathroom or shower room. It is possible to argue that the suggested definition is wrong, but if we are to have such a definition we have got it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) made a powerful speech. He will have gathered that my inclination and preference would have been not to make a further discrimination against the disabled who have suffered from a disadvantage already.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) spoke with the deep knowledge of a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled. He will understand that the balance of his judgment and of mine is the same.
Nevertheless, for those reasons, I commend to the House what I readily concede is a compromise. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen sometimes accuse the Government of being inflexible, but we have shown flexibility and have been willing to listen to the other place, upon which great praise has been heaped by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Although it is the object of his party to abolish the other place, he paid tribute to it this afternoon. I hope that the House will agree to the course I have recommended.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 11 disagreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof:

In page 3, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 4 and insert—
'For paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
3. The dwelling-house has features which are substantially different from those of ordinary dwelling-houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons.'.

In page 3, line 12, at end insert—
'3A. The landlord or a predecessor of the landlord has carried out, for the purpose of making the dwelling-house suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons, one or more of the following alterations, namely—

(a) the provision of not less than 7·5 square metres of additional floor space;
(b) the provision of an additional bathroom or shower-room;
(c) the installation of a vertical lift.".'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 3, line 6, after 'constructed', insert
'or, where it was provided by means of the conversion of a building, since it was so provided".—[Mr. Gow.]

Lords amendment No. 12 disagreed to.

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'for the only or main' and insert
'wholly or partly for the'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 3, line 12, at end insert—
(2A) For paragraph 4 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
3A. The dwelling-house is one of a group of dwelling-houses which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons who are suffering or have suffered from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983) and a social service or special facilities are provided in order to assist those persons.
4. The dwelling-house is one of a group of dwelling-houses which are particularly suitable, having regard to their location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by such persons, or for occupation by such persons and physically disabled persons, and special facilities are provided in order to assist those persons which consist of or include either—

(a) the services of a resident warden; or
(b) the services of a non-resident warden, a system for calling him and the use of a common room in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses."."

Read a Second time.

Amendments made to the Lords amendment: In line 2, leave out from beginning to 'The' in line 4 and insert '3B.'.

In line 9, leave out 'in order to assist' and insert
'wholly or partly for the purpose of assisting'.

In line 16, leave out in order to assist' and insert
'wholly or mainly for the purpose of assisting'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) For paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule I to the 1980 Act (circumstances in which the right to buy does not arise) there shall be substituted the following paragraph
5. The dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and it has always been the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling-house for occupation by persons of pensionable age;
and in this paragraph "designed or specially adapted" means accommodation built or adapted in accordance with the principles of advice and guidance on the design of elderly persons' accommodations issued by the Secretary of State and available to landlords at the time of construction or adaptation."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments in lieu and to words restored, Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 46, Lords amendment No. 190, and Government amendments thereto, Lords amendment No. 216 and Government amendments thereto, and the two Government manuscript amendments.

Mr. Gow: I am happy to tell the House that those are minor technical amendments. The first is to correct a numbering oversight and the second is a drafting change only.
The Government sought to exclude from the right-to-buy provisions dwellings which met two criteria: first, if a dwelling had been designed or specially adapted for those of pensionable age; and, secondly, if it had been the practice to let only to those of pensionable age. Amendment No. 14 seeks to do away with the requirement to obtain the consent of my right hon. Friend if it were sought to exclude an elderly person's dwelling from the right to buy. Under the amendment such dwellings would be excluded from the right to buy at the sole option of the landlord, and not following the determination of my right hon. Friend.
The Government cannot accept that amendment, for two reasons. First, the difficulty with the present procedures has been the application of the design and letting test in paragraph 5 to particular cases. As I said on Report, we have found great difficulty in making sensible and consistent distinctions between those dwellings which are designed or specially adapted for the elderly and other small dwellings provided for other categories of tenant. Amendment No. 14 would not remove the difficulty of making that distinction. It would result in widely differing interpretations about what constitutes an elderly person's dwelling, and great uncertainty for elderly tenants about whether they could expect to get the right to buy. At least under the present procedures, where they are followed, decisions are taken in a way which offers hope of consistency.
The second reason why the procedures laid down in the 1980 legislation are unsatisfactory is that there is clear evidence that some elderly tenants are at present denied the

rights conferred on them by Parliament, both because of a widespread misconception that they do not have the right to buy and because authorities that are hostile to the right to buy are deliberately misleading their tenants and even refusing applications without reference to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, (Mr. Heffer) recognised that on Report when he said:
most local authority tenants have understood that their aged person's dwellings are not available to be bought. Most tenants have therefore not applied to purchase and have not pressed their case with the Secretary of State. There has been what one could call an administrative deterrent".—[Official Report, 21 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 458.]
That is a damaging admission. It implies that we should acquiesce when tenants are cheated of rights specifically conferred on them by the House If that is the position at present when there is, at least in theory, the safeguard of my right hon. Friend's determination, what would happen if the matter were left in the hands of landlords? The amendment would result in many elderly tenants losing their right to buy.
The amendment excludes the wholly understandable wish of elderly people to own their homes. I understand that aspiration and so should the hon. Member for Walton.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Minister recognise that there is a desperate shortage of such accommodation, especially in my borough? The housing directorate confirmed that a large number of people are on waiting lists, most of whom cannot be accommodated in such accommodation, although they would like to be, and that no houses were being built. No contracts for council housing have been entered into in my borough since 1979. That is largely the result of the Government's housing investment policy. What possible justification can there be to diminish further the amount of available rented accommodation? At least when an elderly person dies, his accommodation would remain in the rented stock.

Mr. Gow: I shall have something to say about that point later. I shall correct the perennial misapprehension which pervades the Opposition Benches and the mind of the official spokesman for the Liberal party that when a house has been sold by the public sector it ceases to be available as housing accommodation. When an elderly person buys his house, it changes ownership. That is all. The local authority concerned has a capital receipt.
We discussed whether it was right to discriminate against the disabled. The House must now consider the extent to which, if at all, it is proper to discriminate against those who happen to be of pensionable age. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) wishes to make a contribution he should try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than seek to address the House from a sedentary position.
I understand the aspirations of those who are of pensionable age and wish to become home owners. I understand people of pensionable age who question why Parliament has conferred the right to buy on local authority tenants, yet discriminates against them. If I understand that, the hon. Member for Walton should also understand it. He is now in his 63rd year and not so far away from being of pensionable age himself.
We often consider people who have paid rent dutifully for 20 or 30 years and see the Government's commitment to extending the right to buy as the opportunity to realise


the hope of their lifetime. I repeat that I respect their aspirations and I do not wish to deny to pensioners the opportunity of becoming owner-occupiers simply because they are in the late afternoon or early evening of their lives. That is why the Government put down amendments reinstating our original proposals: first, that elderly tenants of non-sheltered housing who qualify under the normal rules should have the right to buy; but, secondly, that landlords should have the power to impose a pre-emption covenant requiring the house to be offered back to them if it is resold within 21 years of the right-to-buy sale.
However, I understand the anxiety that has been expressed by some landlords about the value of the preemption right that we proposed originally, and I also understand the special problems in rural areas. In another place my noble Friend the Minister of State promised that we would consider both points. Since the Bill left another place we have done so, and have decided to make two changes to our original proposals in the light of that reconsideration.
Under our original proposals the pre-emption right for landlords would have arisen only on the resale of the dwelling within 21 years of its purchase, but the right of pre-emption would not have arisen in cases of inheritance. It has been pointed out that when an elderly resident dies the home might pass to relatives not yet of pensionable age who were not living with the tenant and who might use it occasionally rather than sell it. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) referred to that possibility on Report. Anxiety was also expressed to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner). These would be rare cases, since most people would sell such a property and pre-emption would arise. Nevertheless, we accept that landlords should have the option to repurchase in all cases of inheritance other than in the case of a surviving spouse, unless the property passes to a member of the family of the deceased who had been living with the deceased for 12 months before his or her death.
Concern was also expressed in another place and by some of my hon. Friends—notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—about the possible effect of our original proposals on housing for the elderly in rural areas. It was suggested that there is a special need to retain non-sheltered accommodation for the elderly for rent in those areas, because sheltered accommodation is not usually found in small villages and because of the need to house agricultural workers retiring from tied accommodation. I recognise the strength of feeling on the issue among those responsible for local authority housing in rural areas.
Amendment No. 9 provides that in certain defined rural areas we shall retain the procedure whereby a landlord may apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have individual dwellings excluded from the right to buy. We shall retain effectively the present paragraph 5 procedure in those areas, but the criteria to be applied will be the new criteria set out in the pre-emption provision in clause 7, which will be simpler to operate than were the old ones. It will be open to authorities in those areas to sell, subject to a right of pre-emption if they wish, rather than to apply to my right hon. Friend for exclusion.
The areas to which that amendment will apply are the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and

areas designated by my right hon. Friend as rural areas for the purposes of section 19 of the 1980 Act. My right hon. Friend has designated 21 areas under that provision, and he will, of course, consider making further designations if local authorities wish to apply in the light of this new provision.
Our proposals will enable more pensioners, especially those who already have the right to buy but who are facing the administrative obstruction described by the hon. Member for Walton, to become home owners. At the same time we are introducing safeguards for landlords which will be more effective in practice than those which have operated since 1980. Our proposals represent a reasonable balance between the legitimate interests of landlords and tenants, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Heffer: I listened with great interest to the Minister. I did not entirely agree with everything that he said, but I must agree with him that I am in my 63rd year and, clearly, in a few years' time I will receive my pension. I do not look forward to the prospect with great enthusiasm. I should also tell the House that in four years' time I shall receive my 50 years' badge from my trade union, and I shall be very proud to do so. That union has been much involved in constructing houses for working people, so to that extent it has some, although not much, affinity with this discussion.

Mr. Terry Fields: It is a good job that my hon. Friend does not work at GCHQ.

Mr. Heffer: Yes, it is a jolly good job, but I think that I would have been one of those who stayed in the union.
The Government disagree with this Lords amendment. I admit that there was some confusion in the other place, because it passed the amendment but left the Government's proposal as it was. However, the Government could have clarified that confusion simply by accepting the amendment from the other place. They are ignoring the views of the other place, which on this occasion should be taken carefully into consideration. The Minister tried to suggest that, because I and my hon. Friends occasionally support what comes from the other place, we automatically believe that it should be continued. I shall not become involved in that argument now, but I can say that, whenever the House of Lords brings forward amendments and policies that are in line with what we believe, we are enthusiastically in favour of them. When the other place does not, we are enthusiastically against it. If, from time to time, the other place amends bad Bills, we shall happily accept their amendments; in our view, this was a very good amendment.
The Minister failed to answer the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked, "What about the elderly people on waiting lists?" The Minister went over that without dealing with it.
8 pm
It is interesting to note that, in the second half of 1980, 7,772 dwellings specially designed for the elderly were completed. In the first half of this year the figure was 3,497, less than half of what was built in the latter half of 1980. The waiting lists are still there; 16 councils in the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have 58,200 on the waiting and transfer lists for the elderly. The Minister avoided discussing this.
What about those who are elderly and who need proper accommodation for themselves? The Minister said that I should understand this problem very well. My father and mother lived in a rented house in Hertford. At the end of the second world war they were offered the opportunity as the sitting tenants of buying it for a nominal amount, a ridiculous figure in today's terms, something like £300, but they had not got 300 pennies. They could not even think of buying that house. Why? My father had been working hard all his life, but when he died he had only sixpence in the Post Office Savings Bank, yet he had been a sergeant in the army and had got the military medal. He could never think of buying such accommodation.
Thousands and thousands of our citizens are in the same relative situation today. They could not even dream of buying their accommodation. If that accommodation is taken off the market the Government will make things worse for those who are——

Mr. Terry Dicks: rose——

Mr. Heffer: I am not giving way. It is not that I do not want to give way, but in these debates I sometimes feel like a policeman acting on behalf of the Government. These debates always seem to take place on the day before the House goes into recess. It is funny that this should happen. All my hon. Friends and Conservative Members, though not those in the Chamber, want to know if the debate will finish quickly. We should not go on too long. I want to be helpful to everybody. We should bring this discussion to a close fairly quickly.
The Minister has gone part of the way on inheritance. However, the Government have not dealt properly with the issue. I do not intend to go into detail on the amendment that has come from the other place, but I must say that it would be sensible for the House to accept that amendment. It is better than the proposal of the Government.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In many parts of the country, though not all, it is not the case that if the right to buy is exercised the same roof remains over the same head or another family is housed. There is an alternative which unfortunately can and does happen—that is, at one remove the house or the bungalow concerned becomes a holiday home, in which case it is indeed removed from the housing stock.
If we are to have a healthy community in the rural villages we do not want to export the old people to towns away from the families who will look after them increasingly in their old age. It is only in the towns that there is a sufficient agglomeration of old people's accommodation to justify a warden and then the exclusion comes into force. In many villages there is not a large enough stock of council houses which are let only to old people to justify having a warden. It is ridiculous if people artificially need a warden because they are removed from the environs of their own family.
I am afraid that in many villages the children of elderly people are asking them to exercise the right to buy—they say that they will lend them the money—so that after the old people have died the house can be sold at an immense profit as a holiday home. The provision is wide open to that abuse. It cannot be checked by pre-emption but only by denying the right to buy.
Pre-emption means that the house is bought back only if the council has the money to buy it. That may be a self-evident truth, but it is not universally recognised. Only last

year the proportion of capital receipts from the sale of council houses that can be used for the purchase of new housing has been reduced in terms of percentage at a stroke. There is also the effect of targets on local authority expenditure. These different factors have reduced the practical value of the power to pre-empt.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that he has put his finger on an important point, the possibility of third party purchase? He has narrowed it to areas where the houses could become holiday homes. Will he take it from me that the same thing could and would happen in urban areas such as I represent?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, but there I do not speak from personal knowledge. I would rather confine my comments to that of which I have personal knowledge.
If we are to have balanced communities in villages we need each age group. We need the young people of childbearing age, otherwise the village schools will die. They need grandparents, too, just as grandparents need their grandchildren. The problem is that so much of the housing that is let only to pensioners by the housing authority makes attractive holiday homes. I repeat that pre-emption is an inadequate guard against that when the resources are not there for the housing authority to exercise its right. That is why we need to have the absolute bar which can be applied.
I do not wish to see the test of structural adaptation for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Minister has given, that it becomes nitpicking—are there handles on the wall beside the lavatory pan; is there this or that? It is not the essential ingredient. The essential characteristic for recognising this housing is a consistent pattern of letting it only to retired people. That is the essential characteristic, not arguing what structural characteristics it embraced in the first place and whether those were in accordance with Government guidelines or what alterations have subsequently been made. Consistency in housing policy and letting that property is demonstrable and real.
The evil with which we seek to deal is the same as that by which it can be recognised. The evil is ceasing to have this stock of accommodation for elderly people who would otherwise have to move out of the locality. The only way to deal with that is to use as one's touchstone the consistency of letting policy. I know that even that is not a perfect criterion—none ever is—but I am convinced that the balance of advantage to society and to preserving a viable community in many rural areas cannot be made in any other way.

Mr. Dicks: I am not sure that I accept my hon. Friend's point. The Minister's point about adaptation is a good one, and the consistency of letting is not. In my authority of Hillingdon we let one in two of the properties to young people and elderly people. The properties are identical, but the old people will say that they are adequate for their needs. If one had the general lettings policy, the argument would fall down on those grounds.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is the point that I had thought I had tried to make—it is not physical characteristics of the property that need to be the touchstone, for the reason that my hon. Friend has given. It is the consistency of letting policy that needs to be the touchstone. I have seen a private housing estate in what


was part of my constituency, which the planners said would be bought only by retired people. Therefore, the authority made no provision for expanding primary schools. Sure enough, at least half of the properties were bought by young marrieds and the education authority was caught wrong-footed to a disastrous degree.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for not having a closed mind on this subject and for seeing the real difficulties that exist in certain parts of the country — difficulties that are enhanced by the very low incomes and the very high prices that properties command because of the holiday aspect and because of the rolling over from sales during the working life elsewhere in the country and the sum of money, capital gains tax free, that can be put into the retirement residence. I am grateful for the Minister's effective sympathy in this matter, but the characteristic has to be—if there is to be a real remedy — the consistency of letting policy rather than the physical attributes of the building concerned.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I shall take the lead from the Front Bench and be brief. The debate should be about meeting the needs of the majority, but it seems to me that the majority will suffer from the Tory legislation, which will help only to alleviate the needs of the minority. I represent an inner city area, with a high proportion of elderly people. They cannot afford to purchase, or to get a mortgage on, property, whether in the private or the public sector, and are reliant on council housing. The Minister is about to visit Manchester and I hope that he will come along to see what the private sector can afford to give the elderly. I hope that he will come along to 8 Polygon avenue in Hardwick and see the deplorable conditions in which the elderly are living under private landlords.
People are now living to a greater age, with the medical refinements that we now have, and there is a greater demand for housing facilities for the elderly. Like every other sector, the elderly are being hit by cuts in public expenditure. Housing has figured high in the list of cuts, and the massive cut in housing has brought a decline in building. It is a condemnation of society when we have millions of stockpiled bricks, thousands on the waiting lists and thousands of construction workers on the dole. The sale of council housing has also brought a diminished pool of lettable accommodation. The economics of the madhouse mean that one has to sell about five houses to get the capital to build one.
8.15 pm
Manchester has an increasing demand for elderly persons' accommodation, because, as in many poor cities, the young and strong in wind and limb have tended to go out to the suburbs and the new towns and have left in the inner city those who require the welfare services, the greatest of which is housing. Our local authority has endeavoured to provide for the elderly, but some have to wait years for property that they can then only enjoy for a short time. There is a high turnover of elderly persons' properties in Manchester, and the policy is to keep such housing that does not necessarily fit into sheltered and elderly persons' home categories.
I should like the Minister to reply on several points. For example, what would be the position of a tower block that had been converted, but was not under warden

supervision, with all the amenities such as a community room and of which the letting was for elderly people, although it did not come under the category of sheltered accommodation? What if a relative of the old person purchased one of these flats, probably a small one? When the elderly person dies, one of the younger relatives may be put into the block among all elderly persons. He may be a member of a disco band or a steel band and that could bring resentment, noise and harassment. This could defeat the aims of the local authority, which is trying to provide the right accommodation and the right environment for the elderly.
Many of these properties, such as those for disabled people, have been adapted for the elderly, for example with restrainer bars and other essentials of facilities to assist the elderly. The pool of such accommodation is small, and to make it smaller is an insult to elderly people on the waiting list.
There is also the example of an elderly person with a family that has grown up, got married and gone away and the husband or wife has died, but this person is still living in a five or six-bedroomed house. Would it not be good if a young married couple or relative were to purchase the house and live with granny for one or two years? Are they jumping the list in that example?
As the Government respected the views of the other place in the previous amendment, I expect them to do so on this amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was correct to say that we are always rushed in such debates. I turned up the Hansard for the Third Reading debate, which was on Wednesday 21 December. At 10.23, a Conservative Back Bencher was speaking and was handed a note, which he then read out. He said:
I hope that the House will forgive me if I read the note which has just been passed to me. It says: 'The Scots have to catch the sleeper.' I give in."—[Official Report, 21 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 537.]
The debate was foreshortened by a need that was understandable but not helpful to such debates.
There cannot and should not be selective support of the Government by the House of Lords, which amended several matters of substance in this Bill. It said that it thought that housing for the disabled and housing for the elderly should be excluded from the right-to-buy provisions, and a few minutes ago the Minister, very generously, said that in spite of his own view the Government considered—and he urged his colleagues to support them—that the Lord's view that housing for the disabled should be excluded from the right-to-buy provisions should be accepted.
The amendment passed in the other place was very responsible in its wording. It dealt with two criteria—the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) dealt with one of them, which is very important—the criteria of housing designed or specially adapted for the disabled, and housing which it had always been the practice of the landlord to let to persons of pensionable age.
The Government should be consistent and accept that this latter type of housing, too is a category of housing which is enormously in demand, of which there is an enormous shortage and which all of us who have to deal with a large number of pensionable constituents know to be a regular requirement in terms of the needs that have


to be met by local authorities. To allow an extremely small category of people to buy and take out of the market housing specially adapted and available for the old, which could not be replaced, because the Government have chosen not to put funds into meeting that need, would be inconsistent, if they are now saying that housing for the disabled may be retained in local authority ownership.
I say this on behalf of the Liberal party. Age Concern has written to many of us, I am sure, and said that the arguments put forward in the other place are arguments to which it subscribes on behalf of all old people—and Age Concern has no party political affiliation. Its main reason is that it is impracticable and unrealistic to think that the Government would be in a position to compensate local authorities, which pay a sum of £30,000, or whatever it might be, per unit on this sort of housing, and have the right to buy it back. Since they have already had to give a substantial discount, this would mean that they would be paying at least one and a half times as much — discounting inflation—for the same property at the end of the day. Therefore the right of pre-emption, the right of the local authority to take back that housing, is not of net zero cost to the local authority. It has to pay again, and it is not being given the funds to do it.
The other substantial objection is that there will be opportunities for people to get round the inheritance provisions which would mean that this sort of property would become part of the pool of windfall property coming to people who are not in the category of the old people in our community for whom it was originally designed.
It is quite clear that this category of property should continue to be excluded from the right-to-buy provisions. If the Government believe—and this was one of the reasons given by the Minister—that the old people who, under the present system, have the right to buy are not aware of it, he knows the remedy—to give them the information and make sure that they know what their rights are. The Secretary of State has the power, even under the present legislation, to make sure that the information comes to him so that they can be given the ability to enforce their rights.
The remedy is not to overturn what was decided in another place only a few weeks ago and to take back into the general barter-for-all category accommodation designed exclusively for the old or which has always been lived in by them and was adapted for their use. There are many people waiting for such accommodation. We cannot afford to diminish that stock, and the proposals are not a responsible way of ensuring the use and enjoyment of housing by our elderly citizens and our elderly communities in the foreseeable future.
I hope that the House will be as bold as it was on the previous occasion, learn from the lessons taught it by the House of Lords and accept that that example of backing and standing up for old people ought to be followed.

Mr. Winnick: There should be no doubt about the crucial importance of what we are now debating and the fact that so many elderly people would be adversely affected as a result of the Government's amendment, if it is carried tonight.
The Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that there seemed to be a contradiction because my hon. Friend was supporting

something done in another place. Like my hon. Friend, I do not care where a thing is done; if it is right, we will support it.
I remember that in 1980 there was a demonstration—if that is the right word—by Labour Members when Black Rod was about to come, as a result of which certain concessions were made in the Housing Bill, including the exemption from sale of old people's dwellings.
There is an acute shortage of such accommodation in my own borough, as I said to the Minister in my intervention. There is a long list of people in my constituency and in the two neighbouring constituencies waiting for such accommodation. I am told that most of the people who need this accommodation will not be rehoused, and the reason is quite simple: no such accommodation is now being built. The Minister said that it does not really matter because, if the house is sold, it remains part of the housing stock. Of course it does, that is self-evident, but what the Minister does not seem to realise is that, as a result of such accommodation's being sold, it is quite likely to be permanently lost to the rented sector. That is the crucial point. And one must see this, of course, against the background of the Government's having refused to allow any privately rented accommodation to be sold as of right to sitting tenants. The private sector is quite sacred to this Government, but When it comes to the public sector any type of accommodation can be sold off, with large discounts and all the rest.
I would be opposed to the measure, anyway, and I do not deny it, but it is even worse when we know that as a result of Government policy hardly any such accommodation—the figures were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton — is being built. In my own borough — I emphasise this, because it shows the seriousness of the situation — while there is a long waiting list for such accommodation, and certainly most of the people who want such accommodation are not going to be rehoused, no contracts have been entered into for council house building of any kind, including the type of accommodation which is now under discussion, since 1979. That is largely the result of the deliberate Government policy, whereby local authorities can no longer fulfil one of their important functions, which is to ensure that there is sufficient housing stock for people in need.
I believe, with my hon. Friends, that the Lords made the right decision. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of the Government's majority, this amendment which the Government are now putting forward to overturn the Lords amendment were carried tonight.

Mr. John Fraser: If the House does not support the Lords amendment it will be doing the gravest possible disservice to the elderly of this country. Anybody who has given any serious consideration to this matter understands and knows that the stock of accommodation which is available to elderly people is going to be lost as a result of extending the right to buy to accommodation specifically designed for the elderly—not least because the discount is going to be nearer the 60 per cent. end of the market than the minimum of 32 per cent. Therefore there can be no doubt that this accommodation will be lost to generation after generation of elderly people and that will do a grave disservice to the elderly in the community, particularly those living in the inner city — Brixton, where I live, Southwark, and so on.
Many of these people have had very difficult lives and look forward to going to an elderly person's home in the country or at the seaside, where many estates have been developed by the GLC. That chance is now going to be ended, and what will happen is that the children of the elderly people are going to get a huge windfall. The preemptive provisions in the Bill are absolute nonsense and cant. Local authorities will not have the money to buy back within 21 years at inflated prices and without a discount. That simply will not happen. The Government, who have been cutting public expenditure on housing, know that. If hon. Members have any concern at all for the older generation, they must support the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Gow: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
I must rebuke the official spokesman of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, (Mr. Hughes), because he suggested that somehow the House was under some constraint of time when considering this important matter and the amendments from the other place. We can all understand the anxiety of Liberal Members to go to their duties elsewhere, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that a motion not in the name of the Leader of the Opposition or of the Leader of the Liberal party—it may well be procedurally impossible to have that—but in the name of the Prime Minister stands on the Order Paper, to be debated at 10 pm—

Mr. John Fraser: Oh, come on.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey objected that there was not enough time. I am entitled to point out to the House, and shall so point out, that the Government have provided that there will be sufficient time to debate these matters.
That said, I shall be brief. The Government have responsibly said that they are taking into account the views that have been expressed on this subject in the other place. We have made two concessions to those views. First, we have extended the opportunity for pre-emption to cases other than those on sale. Secondly, we have included the possibility of exclusion from the right to buy in certain rural areas. I am grateful for the cautious welcome that was given to the Government's decision by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), and I commend the Government's decision to the House.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 101

Division No. 250]
[8.32 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Best, Keith


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Body, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Baldry, Anthony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Batiste, Spencer
Brinton, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Brooke, Hon Peter





Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Key, Robert


Browne, John
Kilfedder, James A.


Bruinvels, Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bryan, Sir Paul
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Knowles, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Knox, David


Budgen, Nick
Lamont, Norman


Burt, Alistair
Lang, Ian


Butterfill, John
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chapman, Sydney
Lester, Jim


Churchill, W. S.
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lightbown, David


Colvin, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cope, John
Lord, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Lyell, Nicholas


Couchman, James
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Cranborne, Viscount
Macfarlane, Neil


Critchley, Julian
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Crouch, David
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maclean, David John


Dicks, Terry
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Madel, David


Dunn, Robert
Major, John


Durant, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Evennett, David
Malone, Gerald


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Farr, John
Marlow, Antony


Favell, Anthony
Mates, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mather, Carol


Fletcher, Alexander
Maude, Hon Francis


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forman, Nigel
Mellor, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Franks, Cecil
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gale, Roger
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Galley, Roy
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Montgomery, Fergus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gow, Ian
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gower, Sir Raymond
Murphy, Christopher


Gregory, Conal
Neale, Gerrard


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Norris, Steven


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Oppenheim, Philip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ottaway, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hannam, John
Parris, Matthew


Harvey, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Pawsey, James


Hawksley, Warren
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, J.
Pollock, Alexander


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powley, John


Henderson, Barry
Price, Sir David


Hickmet, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hind, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hooson, Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Michael
Renton, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Irving, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Speller, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spencer, Derek
Walden, George


Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stanley, John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Watson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Whitney, Raymond


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Tracey, Richard





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Johnston, Russell


Ashdown, Paddy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Kirkwood, Archibald


Barron, Kevin
Leighton, Ronald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Litherland, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Blair, Anthony
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McNamara, Kevin


Bruce, Malcolm
Marek, Dr John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Michie, William


Corbett, Robin
Mikardo, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Crowther, Stan
Nellist, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Brien, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Parry, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Pavitt, Laurie


Dixon, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dobson, Frank
Pike, Peter


Dormand, Jack
Prescott, John


Dubs, Alfred
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Faulds, Andrew
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rowlands, Ted


Foster, Derek
Ryman, John


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sedgemore, Brian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Freud, Clement
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Godman, Dr Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gould, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hardy, Peter
Snape, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Soley, Clive


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spearing, Nigel


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Heffer, Eric S.
Tinn, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Torney, Tom


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hoyle, Douglas
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Woodall, Alec





Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. John Home-Robertson and



Mr. Allen McKay.


Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 14 disagreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof:—

(a), in page 3, line 16, at beginning insert—

'At the end of that Part of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
6.—(1) The dwelling-house is situated in a National Park, or an area designated under section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of outstanding natural beauty, or an area designated under section 19 of this Act as a rural area, and the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that the right to buy is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house on the ground that the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly siutable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and
(b) was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person (whether the tenant or predecessor or any other person).
(2) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within four weeks or, in a case falling within section 5(2) of this Act, eight weeks of the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy.

(5).'.

(b), in page 3, line 16, leave out 'and the provision made by subsection (3) above.'.

(c), in page 3, line 19, leave out 'and'.

(d), in page 3, line 21, at end insert
; and the amendment made by subsection (4) above shall not apply where the tenant's claim to exercise the right to buy was made before that date unless, at that date, the period specified in paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act had not expired or there was outstanding an application for a determination under that paragraph.
(6) Nothing in subsection (3) above shall be taken as reviving any claim to exercise the right to buy made before the commencement date.
>(7) Where the amendment made by subsection (4) above applies in relation to a claim to exercise the right to buy made before the commencement date, that amendment shall have effect as if for the words "the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy" there were substituted the words "the commencement of Part I of the 1984 Act".'.

(e), in page 5, line 6, after 'person', insert 'or persons'.

(f), in page 8, line 29, after 'age', insert 'or a physically disabled person'.

(g), in page 8, line 39, leave out 'section 8(3A) of this Act' and insert 'subsection (2A) below'.

(h), in page 9, line 11, at end insert—
'(2A) A relevant disposal is exempted by this subsection if—

(a) it is exempted by section 8(3A)(a), (c), (d) or (e) of this Act; or
(b) it is a vesting of the whole of the dwelling-house in a person or persons taking under a will or on an intestacy and the person or one of the persons beneficially entitled to the dwelling-house is the spouse of the deceased or a member of his family who resided with him throughout the period of twelve months ending with the death.'.

(i) in page 9, line 39, leave out 'section 8(3A) of this Act' and insert 'subsection (2A) above'.

(j), in page 9, line 42, at end insert—
'(8) In any case where the landlord made an application for a determination under paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, it shall be conclusively presumed that this section does not apply.'.

(k), in page 55, line 1, leave out '5' and insert '6'.

(l), in page 55, line 4, leave out '6' and insert '7'.

(m), in page 66, line 18, at end insert 'or persons'.

(n), in page 75, line 7, at end insert 'or persons'.

(o), in page 85, line 17, leave out from 'in' to 'of in line 19 and insert
'subsection (2A) for the words "section 8(3A) (a), (c), (d) or (e) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(5) (a), (c), (d) or (e)".'.

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15.

Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 agreed to.

Clause 3

FURTHER PERIODS TO COUNT FOR QUALIFICATION AND DISCOUNT

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 3, line 26, after "with" insert "Part I of'.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18, 19, 111 to 114, 122 to 124, 126 to 129, 206, 208 and 210.

Mr. Roberts: My noble Friend Lord Bellwin moved this amendment so felicitously in the other place that the noble Baroness Birk said that had it been set to music by Andrew Lloyd Webber my noble Friend would have had a hit on his hands. I hope that I can emulate my noble Friend.
The key amendment in this group is No. 122. It proposes a change in the rules governing a tenant's discount entitlement in those relatively rare cases where the tenant in question has already once purchased his home from a public sector body with the benefit of a discount. The other amendments in the group are all consequential to that change, or drafting amendments.
The present "previous purchaser" rule provides that, where an individual has once exercised his right to buy, he may only count periods subsequent to that purchase for qualification and discount purchases if at a later stage he again becomes a tenant and again wishes to buy. I cannot say that this rule has so far given rise to a great number of problems; there are not many tenants who since 1980 have managed to buy, sell, become tenants again and buy again. But individual authorities have brought certain problems to our attention, and we have spotted various potential anomalies in looking at the provisions more carefully.
In those circumstances, it seemed worth trying to get the rules right, even though it meant introducing new amendments at a relatively late stage of the Bill's progress. The "previous purchaser" rules will, in the nature of things, become more relevant with the passage of time. But we were also particularly concerned to get the rules right in the context of the proposed defective dwelling legislation. The Bill recently introduced will provide in certain circumstances for councils to repurchase defective dwellings and to give their occupants secure tenancies. In those cases tenants will often wish to buy again.
One loophole in the present position is that it bites only when the previous purchase has been made under the right-to-buy legislation. That is clearly anomalous. The

discounts made available by other public sector bodies under voluntary sales schemes may be as generous as those under the right to buy. The sales scheme operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is a case in point. Equally, voluntary sales by district councils may be on terms which are even more generous than those available under the current legislation. Since July last year, councils have had consent to sell on a discretionary basis at discounts of up to 60 per cent. in anticipation of the provisions in this Bill. So it is obviously sensible that, if we are to have a previous purchaser rule at all, it should take account of both the statutory and voluntary sales schemes.
Other anomalies follow from the fact that the present rule has no regard to the actual discount a tenant may have received on a previous purchase. This means, for example, that a second purchaser will be entitled to exactly the same discount regardless of whether he in practice received the maximum £25,000 first time round or, conversely, he received no discount because of the "cost floor" rule.
The new rule proposed in amendment No. 122 will in some circumstances be more favourable to the previous purchaser, and in some circumstances less so. I believe that it is, at any rate, fairer. It provides that, first, a tenant's discount entitlement should be calculated by reference to all the periods he has spent as a secure tenant, regardless of whether or not he has purchased before; but that, secondly, the discount entitlement so calculated should be abated by the cash value of any discount from which he may have benefited on a previous purchase; and that, third, in calculating this abatement, any purchase from a public sector body at a discount should be taken into account, regardless of whether or not the purchase was under the right to buy scheme. The final element of these proposals is that they provide that, where the benefit of discount on any previous purchase has been split between more than one person—for example, where a husband and wife have bought jointly but subsequently separated—the abatement of discount entitlement on any second purchase shall be proportionate to the benfit of any discount previously received. While I accept that the proposed new rules are not easy to grasp at a superficial reading, I have no doubt that they are more equitable and will be welcomed by local authorities of all persuasions.

Mr. John Fraser: What is to be the sanction against non-disclosure of a previous purchase? I understand that under the rules it is possible for one to have purchased a house from a housing association that is not a charity—or, after these proceedings, to have purchased a house if one was a tenant of a charity—and, at a later stage of one's life, to have become a tenant of a local authority, and perhaps in one's old age to have purchased an elderly person's bungalow. What are the effective sanctions against non-disclosure, which must be tempting to a tenant if there is a substantial discount to be obtained as a result of non-disclosure?
Will the Minister explain the philosophy behind this proposal? Is it that the discount is a loss to the community, a loss not to be repeated more than once? I should have thought that the idea behind this Government scheme, with which I do not entirely agree, was that it was of advantage to the community and society generally as well as to the individual tenant to exercise the right to buy and receive a discount. These provisions seem to admit, however, that


there is some loss to the public purse as the result of the exercise of a discount and that that loss should be limited. Does the Minister take that view, too?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I should have thought that anyone not disclosing a first purchase would stand to lose in the sense that, if he was involved in a second purchase, he would—the authority selling to him would want to know his previous history—wish his period as a tenant to be taken into account. I do not see any benefit arising to the second purchaser in the event of non-disclosure.
Obviously. too, when he exercises his right to buy, the authority with which he is dealing trusts that he is acting in good faith. I am sure that in making his application he would, at some stage before completion, show the bona fide nature of his application.
In my opening remarks I explained the thinking behind our acceptance of the amendment. What we are basically trying to do is bring the right to buy on to the same basis as voluntary sales schemes. We are inspired in this case by the desire to ensure fairness as between one kind of purchaser and another.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 agreed to.

New Clause

INCLUSION OF LAND LET WITH OR USED FOR PURPOSES OF DWELLING-HOUSE

Lords amendment: No. 21, after clause 3, insert the following new clause—

".—(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act "dwelling-house" has the meaning given by section 50(2) of that Act as extended by section 3(4) of that Act.

(2) In subsection (2) of section 3 of the 1980 Act (land used for purposes of dwelling-house) after the words "by virtue of there shall be inserted the words "subsection (4) below or".

(3) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(4) There shall be treated as included in a dwelling-house any land which is or has been used for the purposes of the dwelling-house if—

(a) the tenant, by a written notice served on the landlord at any time before he exercises the right to buy, requires the land to be included in the dwelling-house; and
(b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the land to be so included.
(4A) A notice under subsection (4) above may be withdrawn by a written notice served on the landlord at any time before the tenant exercises the right to buy.

(4) Where, after the service of the notice under section 10(1) of the 1980 Act, a notice under section 3(4) of that Act is served or withdrawn, the parties shall, as soon as practicable after the service or withdrawal of that notice, take all such steps (whether by way of amending, withdrawing or re-serving any notice or extending any period or otherwise) as may be requisite for the purpose of securing that all parties are (as nearly as may be) in the same position as that in which they would have been if the notice under section 3(4) had been served or withdrawn before the service of the notice under section 10(1)."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 191.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The new clause introduced by amendment No. 21 is intended to clarify the extent to which land, including garages, may be included in right-to-buy sales. By virtue of section 27(1) and section 50(2) of the 1980 Act, a tenant has a right to buy any land which is let together with the

dwelling house. It has been argued by some authorities who have refused to sell garages let to the tenant under his secure tenancy that section 50(2) does not apply to part I of the 1980 Act. Subsection (1) of the new clause disposes of the argument about the application of section 50(2) by making it absolutely clear that the tenant has a right to buy all property comprised in his secure tenancy.
Under section 3(4) of the 1980 Act a tenant may also buy any land which is used for the purposes of the dwelling, provided that the landlord is willing to sell. We have come across some harsh decisions by landlords. One authority refused to sell a garage which was within a few feet of the back door of the house and which the tenants had rented since they took the letting of the house.
In defending its refusal to sell the garage, the council pointed to the fact that two separate tenancy agreements covered the house and the garage, and that while the tenancy of the house was in the name of the husband and wife, the garage was in the husband's name only. I have many letters from plaintiff tenants who have been refused the right to purchase their garages.
There have also been cases where landlords have refused to sell gardens to tenants, even though the tenants have always looked after the gardens. The authorities argued that the gardens were not comprised in the secure tenancies and that therefore the tenants had no right to the inclusion of the gardens in the sale. Subsection (2) of the new clause gives the tenant the right to require, by written notice, that any land which is used for the purposes of the dwelling be included in the sale, and provided that it is reasonable that the land should be so included, the tenant's request cannot be refused.
If the tenant's request is made after his original application—for example, he may not know until die landlord's offer notice arrives that the garage is not to be included in the sale—the parties must take all steps necessary to ensure that they would be in the same position as if the tenant's request had been made with his right-to-buy application. That is dealt with in subsection (3). The amendment does not apply to completed sales.
Amendment 191 contains a minor consequential change. I hope that the House will agree that these proposals are necessary.

Mr. John Fraser: I do not agree that they are necessary. Sometimes, insisting on a landlord selling a garage, for example, with the house when it is not immediately adjacent to the house, can create practical problems. I say that as a solicitor who has advised housing associations.
One difficulty is that, as the Bill tightens up and restricts the covenants that a local authority or housing association can place on a lease or on the sale of land, the amount of money that can be raised through management charges for maintaining amenities on the whole estate is even more restricted. Tenants are beginning to challenge the rent charge arrangements that I have devised for some housing associations, to ensure that there is a fund—not involving any profit—for maintaining common amenities.
There is always a risk for a housing association—rather than a local authority that has a rate fund—of running into loss-making on maintaining the amenities of an estate as more houses are sold. One insurance policy that helps housing associations is where facilities such as garages, that are detached from the houses, can be let on


reasonable—not extortionate—terms. At least that provides a fund of money that gives a little leeway to maintain the amenities of the estate as houses are sold. It is a pity that that safety margin may be lost if garages that are not immediately contiguous to the houses are sold.
9 pm
Another reason for disagreeing with the amendment is purely practical rather than one of principle. It leads to great conveyancing difficulties if local authorities have to convey land that is not adjacent to the house being sold. A garage used by the tenant of a house may be 100 yards away. That creates complex covenants, cross-easements and maintenance provisions. If there is no evidence of abuse in the amount of rent charged by a local authority for a garage or another amenity, it would be sensible to leave the matter as it is.
The Opposition and the Government disagree about the principle of the matter, but I realise that if a garden or garage is an integral part of a unit or immediately adjacent to it, it would be sensible to allow the right to buy to extend to those facilities. But where those facilities are distant from the house, although used by the tenant, it is better to leave the law as it is.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not agree that garages and gardens should necessarily be sold with the dwelling. Many letters that I have received point out that the sale of a garage has been refused. For example, in one case the garage is only 38 inches from the side wall of the house, has direct access into the garden, and the half-glazed door at the rear looks directly into the kitchen. The tenant considers that the council is being unreasonable to refuse the sale of the garage—and there are many instances of such unreasonableness.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the distance of a garage from a house, he must know that there is a test of reasonableness. At first, it is a matter for the parties to agree between themselves, but, eventually, it could become a matter for the courts to decide.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

REPAYMENT OF DISCOUNT ON EARLY DISPOSAL

Lords amendment No. 22 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 4 line 35, at end insert
; and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above it shall be assumed that any option to renew or extend a lease or sub-lease, whether or not forming part of a series of options, is exercised, and that any option to terminate a lease or sub-lease is not exercised

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 140 and 166.

Mr. Gow: These amendments are designed to block a possible loophole in the discount clawback provisions. I am sure that they are uncontroversial, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 27 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 5, line 29, leave out
After subsection (4) of that section
and insert—

In subsection (4) of that section for the words "specified in" there shall be substituted the words "falling within".
(3A) After that subsection".

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 29, 30, 172 to 174 and 205.

Sir George Young: The purpose of the amendments is to enable additions to be made to the list of mortgage lenders whose loans take priority over repayment of discount on sales of council and other public sector housing. That should help to attract a little more private sector finance for the purchase of council houses and the refinancing of local authority mortgages.
I do not think that the amendments are controversial. They are matters on which we have received representations, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 agreed to.

Clause 6

TERMS OF CONVEYANCE OR GRANT

Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 7, line 40, after "declared" insert—

"(a) that nothing in paragraph 8 of that Schedule shall be taken as affecting the operation of paragraph 5 of that Schedule; and
(b) ".

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor amendment, which we have brought forward at the request of the local authority associations. Clause 6(2) is intended to ensure that all covenants created in right-to-buy conveyances or leases are subject to the test of reasonableness. The matter has given rise to a fair deal of correspondence, and the amendment has been made in the interests of clarity.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 8, line 1, leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs 16 and".

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendment No. 34.

Mr. Roberts: The amendment is in response to an undertaking my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). The purpose of the amendments is to provide that a right-to-buy purchaser is required to contribute towards the insurance costs incurred by the landlord only if the lease provides an express right to the purchaser and his successors to inspect the insurance policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 34 to 46, 47 and 49 agreed to.

Clause 8

DWELLING-HOUSES IN NATIONAL PARKS AND AREAS AND AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY ETC.

Lords amendment: No 50, in page 10, line 25, leave out
of the tenant (or his successor in title)" and insert "to be reconveyed or surrendered

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos 51, 130 to 134, 152 to 156, 163 and 164.

Sir George Young: The amendments are fairly technical and are intended to clarify the various valuation assumptions in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 51 to 61 agreed to.

New Clause

CONSENT TO CERTAIN VOLUNTARY DISPOSALS

Lords amendment No. 62, after clause 21, insert the following new clause—
.—(1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a local authority shall not dispose of a dwelling-house to which this section applies otherwise than in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or this Part of this Act.
(2) A dwelling-house is one to which this section applies if—

(a) it is let on a secure tenancy; or
(b) a lease of it has been granted in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or this Part of this Act, unless (in either case) it has been acquired or appropriated by the local authority for the purposes of Part V of the 1957 Act.
(3) A consent under this section may be given either generally to all local authorities or to any particular local authority or description of authority and either generally in relation to all dwelling-houses to which this section applies or in relation to any particular dwelling-house or description of dwelling-house to which this section applies.
(4) Any such consent may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit to impose.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, any such consent may be given subject to conditions as to the price, premium or rent to be obtained on a disposal of a dwelling-house to which this section applies, including conditions as to the amount by which, on a disposal of such a dwelling-house by way of sale or by the grant or assignment of a lease at a premium, the price or premium is to be, or may be, discounted by the local authority.
(6) Section 26(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 (power of local authorities etc. to dispose of land without consent) shall not apply to any disposal which requires a consent under this section.
(7) If—

(a) a local authority dispose of a dwelling-house to which this section applies; and
(b) the disposal is one which requires a consent under this section but is made without such a consent,
then, unless the disposal is to an individual (or to two or more individuals) and does not extend to any other dwelling-house to which this section applies, it shall be void and section 128(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 or, as the case may be, section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 (protection of purchasers) shall not apply.
(8) For the purposes of this section the grant of an option to purchase the freehold of, or any other interest in, a dwelling-house to which this section applies is a disposal and any consent given under this section to such a disposal extends to any disposal made in pursuance of the option.
(9) In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in section 20 above.

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall discuss Lords amendment No. 204.

Mr. Gow: These amendments follow on from the third group of amendments which the House discussed earlier today. They are consistent with the amendments we made with regard to county councils. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. John Fraser: I was hoping that the amendments had a rather wider purpose. I understand that they require a local authority to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to dispose of premises that are subject to a secure tenancy. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) and I received a deputation of tenants from Fulham court. I know Fulham court well from my youth because I used to babysit there for our local agent. Fulham court is a rather run-down block of council flats on the Fulham road, owned by Hammersmith borough council. We understood from the deputation we received—the views of the constituency member and the housing spokesman showed little difference—that the residents were worried that Hammersmith borough council intended to sell their block of flats to the private sector, although they had secure tenancies on those premises. They were worried about being sold down the river by their local authority.
I am sure that the Minister, for reasons of his own, objects to such sales. A sale of tenanted property from a local authority into the private sector means two features are lost. There is a loss because the status of the secure tenancy is converted to the status of a regulated tenancy. Because the tenants cease to be secure tenants, they cease also to have the right to buy—I point out that there is not as much agreement on that point. The tenants are most worried that they will be transferred from a landlord who has ample resources to maintain, repair and improve their premises, to a landlord who has no interest in taking those actions. The landlord may be anxious to transfer the tenants to other accommodation and to sell off the flats in Fulham court to the private sector. There have been rumours that Wandsworth borough council intended to take the same course. I ask the Minister to make a policy statement that he will not consent, except in exceptional circumstances, to the sale of premises like Fulham court into the private sector by a local authority, which would have the effect of defeating the rights of tenants as well as denying them access to public resources for the maintenance and management of their premises.

Mr. Gow: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and enlarge on the purpose of the amendment. Under section 104 of the Housing Act 1957, as amended by sections 91 and 92 of the 1980 Act, local authorities may not dispose of land held under general housing powers otherwise than under the right to buy or on a secure tenancy, except with the consent of my right hon. Friend.
In contrast, local authorities are generally free to dispose of land held other than under housing powers in any manner that they wish, provided that they do so for the best price that can reasonably be obtained. This means that where land is held under other than part V powers—the powers that govern general housing provision—a local authority which is so minded is effectively in a position to frustrate a tenant's application to exercise his right to buy. It can do so by disposing of its interest in his home over his head to a third party who is not a right to buy landlord. That was one of the possibilities in the mind of the hon. Gentleman.
The new clause will apply where a dwelling is held under non-part V powers and is let on a secure tenancy or under a right-to-buy lease. It will provide that local authorities may not dispose of their interest in such property without the consent of my right hon. Friend except where they do so under the right-to-buy provisions.
My right hon. Friend will have a power to make general consents in relation to such disposals, and special consents to meet individual circumstances. Where special individual cases arise, my right hon. Friend will consider each case on its merits. I have considerable sympathy with the views which the hon. Gentleman expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

FURTHER ADVANCES IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN VOLUNTARY DISPOSALS

Lords amendment: No. 63, to insert the following new Clause—
Where—

(a) a lease of a dwelling-house granted otherwise than in pursuance of this Part of this Act contains a provision to the like effect as that required by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act; and
(b) a body specified in section 18(3) above has, in the exercise of any of its powers, left outstanding or advanced any amount on the security of the dwelling-house,
that power shall include power to advance further amounts for the purpose of assisting the tenant to make payments in pursuance of that provision.

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, which involves privilege, it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.

Mr. Gow: The amendment seeks to clarify an issue that arises under the lending powers of public sector bodies. This arises where there are voluntary shared ownership leases. It needs to be made clear that public authorities already have powers to lend on shared ownership sales and that those powers include the power to lend on the subsequent acquisition of the shared ownership lessee of further shares. The new clause that is introduced by the amendment would achieve that purpose.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof [Special Entry]:

(a), in line 2, at beginning insert '(1)'.
(b), in line 12, at end add—
'(2) This section shall be deemed always to have had effect.'.

Clause 23

GROUNDS AND ORDERS FOR POSSESSION

Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 24, line 29, at beginning insert
In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1980 Act (grounds on which court may order possession) after ground 5 there shall be inserted the following grounds—

Ground 5A

The tenancy was assigned to the tenant, or to a predecessor in title of his who is a member of his family and is residing in the dwelling-house, by an assignment made by virtue of section

37A of this act and a premium was paid either in connection with that assignment or the assignment which the tenant or predecessor himself made by virtue of that section.
In this paragraph "premium" means any fine or other like sum and any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent.

Ground 5B

The dwelling-house forms part of, or is within the curtilage of, a building to which sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of part I of Schedule 1 to this Act applies and—

(a) the dwelling-house was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his in consequence of the tenant or predecessor being in the employment of the landlord or of a body specified in sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph; and
(b) the tenant or any person residing in the dwelling-house has been guilty of conduct such that, having regard to the purpose for which the building is used, it would not be right for him to continue in occupation of the dwelling-house.

(1A)".

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 64, 74 to 78, 186 and Government amendments, 189, 195, 196, 202 and 203.

Sir George Young: Last November, the Government announced their intention to give secure tenants a statutory right to exchange their homes. The Department of the Environment issued a consultation letter setting out its proposals. The Government's intention was declared in the light of the rather patchy way in which landlords now allow their tenants to move home. Some landlords are generous in their consideration of applications and embrace the wider national argument for mobility by rehousing people from outside their areas, despite a natural first duty towards their own ratepayers. These landlords recognise, too, the need to mitigate personal hardships and suffering caused by restricting tenants' mobility. Other landlords are, to put it frankly, rather unhelpful, sometimes to the point of obstructiveness. Some landlords are parochially resistant to the idea of people moving to their areas from elsewhere.
All hon. Members agree that housing mobility for tenants who want to move is to be encouraged. We have taken steps in recent years to promote mobility by encouraging tenants to believe that it is possible to move, and to provide the means whereby such moves may be accomplished.
The national mobility scheme is a voluntary arrangement that began three years ago between public sector landlords throughout the United Kingdom and it has shown what can be done. The ten-thousandth move at national level, that is, across county boundaries, was celebrated in January this year. I was delighted to hand over the keys to the tenant concerned, who lives in Oxford.
9.15 pm
The tenants exchange scheme was launched two years ago to provide a co-ordinated national information service for tenants wanting to find someone with whom to exchange in any part of England and Wales. But little purpose is achieved if, having found a possible exchange partner, tenants find themselves frustrated by their landlords' unreasonable refusal of consent to the exchange.
The proposed right to exchange is intended, therefore, to help tenants by limiting the scope for landlords to withhold consent. I am glad to say that there was


widespread support in varying degrees for the Government's proposals, especially from groups representing tenants' interests, such as the National Consumer Council. The provisions were drawn up to meet the concern of landlords that they should have adequate protection against unacceptable exchanges, but to remove any opportunity for capricious or frivolous decisions.
I shall briefly describe the main principles of the right to exchange. Amendment No. 76 is the principal provision. Every secure tenant would have a right, subject to his landlord's consent, which could not be withheld except on certain prescribed grounds, to assign his tenancy to another secure tenant whether or not of the same landlord on condition that the other secure tenant was given consent by his landlord for a parallel assignment. The provisions do not restrict exchanges to straight swaps, but would allow three-way, or more, arrangements.
As hon. Members are aware, the 1980 Act provides that assigned tenancies are non-secure unless they are assigned under certain prescribed circumstances. Clause 24 modifies that provision so that tenancies cannot be assigned unless those prescribed circumstances apply, in which case the tenancies remain secure. Assignment of tenancies to effect exchanges will also be secure.
Amendment No. 201 to schedule 10, which was taken earlier, will ensure that, where a successor exchanges he retains his status as a successor. Our original proposals that were introduced last November suggested that landlords would be required to respond to tenants' applications within 28 days. In the light of comments received we have extended the response period to six weeks. Landlords can attach conditions to consents only where tenants have outstanding obligations to their landlords, in particular the paying of rent arrears. It will not be possible, for example, for landlords to impose a condition requiring a fee for consenting to tenants' applications to exchange. Failure to respond to a tenant's application within the six-week period will imply consent. Where a landlord intends to withhold consent he must do so in writing indicating the grounds for refusal, which the tenant could challenge in the county court if he wished.
Hon. Members may find it helpful if I run through the main grounds for refusal as set out in amendment No. 186, which new schedule 4A would prescribe where they differ from the equivalent grounds for seeking possession, as set out in schedule 4 to the 1980 Act. The landlord would be able to refuse consent where the tenant applying to exchange with the proposed incoming tenant had an outstanding court order against him giving possession to the landlord. That means that tenants to be evicted on the grounds of tenant misdemeanour could lose their right to exchange.
Landlords would also be able to refuse consent where the tenant making the application to exchange, or the proposed incoming tenant, had been served with a notice seeking possession that was still in force, on any of grounds 1 to 5 of schedule 4 to the 1980 Act relating to some unsatisfactory way in which they had conducted themselves as tenants. The House will know that we are proposing a new ground 5A to the schedule of grounds for possession, so that tenants who trade their tenancies by receiving or paying inducements for their tenancies can be evicted.
A further ground for refusal is where substantial under-occupation of the dwelling would result if the tenancy were to be assigned to the proposed incoming tenant. We

received a number of representations asking how "substantial under-occupation" might be defined. I understand the desire to be explicit. However, the House will recognise the difficulties in attempting an unambiguous definition. A parallel is demonstrated by the extensive and complicated definition of overcrowding set out in section 77 and schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1957.
Similarly, under-occupation depends on the circumstances, and what is meant by bedrooms, or bed spaces, or indeed "spare". It will ultimately be for the courts to decide what constitutes substantial under-occupation on the facts of any individual case.
For myself, I would normally regard it as unreasonable to object to an exchange simply on the ground that the tenant would have the enjoyment of a spare bedroom. Some people may take the view that having a spare room to put up visiting friends or relations for the night is under-occupation, but I do not. That is why we have tried to give latitude in favour of tenants by the use of the words "substantial under-occupation".
The other grounds for refusal are self-evident and precedented, either already in schedule 4 to the 1980 Act or, as was mentioned earlier, in the proposed new ground 5B relating to dwellings within the curtilage of operational buildings and within cemeteries. The two starred Government amendments to amendment No. 186 simply carry through to new schedule 4A the intention that dwellings within cemeteries be treated in the same way as dwellings within operational buildings. Amendment No. 203 to schedule 10 amending section 86 of the 1980 Act provides that county courts may consider whether a landlord's refusal to consent to an exchange was outside the prescribed grounds.
New ground 5A is also intended to ensure that a tenant should not be able to relieve himself of the threw of eviction by immediately assigning the property again—as he can under section 37 of the 1980 Act -- to a member of his family.
Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 are consequential to the introduction of the right to exchange and amend section 13 of the 1980 Act. This provides that where, after a secure tenant has applied for the right to buy, another person succeeds to that tenancy, then the new tenant shall be in the same position as if he had applied. One effect would be that the price for the dwelling house would be based on the value of the house as at the date of the former tenant's application. A tenant would normally succeed to a secure tenancy on the death of the former tenant. It could happen also if the tenancy was assigned to the new tenant, for instance on the dissolution of a marriage by order under section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
But the right-to-exchange provisions have the effect that tenants taking over existing tenancies on assignment fall within the ambit of section 13. They would therefore have the benefit of the fixed valuation. We do not think that this is right, and these two amendments are intended to exclude from the scope of section 13 tenants taking over existing tenancies—and, therefore, possibly existing rights to buy applications—under the right to exchange.
There is one further technical consequential amendment, No. 189, to schedule 10 to the Bill. The amendment to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 arises because life tenancies granted by local authorities are secure tenancies under the 1980 Act. The right to such tenancies could give


these tenants additional and unintended rights to enfranchise under the 1967 Act. The amendment excludes the possibility.
Amendments Nos. 75, 77 and 78 to clause 24 are minor and consequential, as is amendment No. 202 to schedule 10.
The minor amendment, No. 74 to clause 24, is consequential and paves the way for amendment No. 79 which follows this tranche of amendments.

Mr. Chris Smith: I speak for two reasons. First, I congratulate the Minister on a masterly summary of an extremely complicated series of amendments and clauses. Doubtless his civil servants should also be congratulated. Secondly, the Opposition warmly welcome the principle of a right to exchange. This is a valuable addition to the rights available to secure tenants.
However, a slight worry is that the scheme brought forward by the Government will in practice not provide the sort of right to exchange expected by tenants who feel that automatically it will make it easier to exchange than at present. In practice I doubt whether, when the amendment has been passed, there will be many benefits on the ground.
First, if we are to achieve in practice what the Government are seeking in principle to achieve through these amendments, there will have to be some mechanism to help tenants identify people who might wish to exchange with them. At the moment, the only practicable mechanism is by word of mouth or newspaper advertisements. Both those avenues are used to a considerable extent. Do the Government envisage that that situation will remain unchanged after the legislation has been amended in this way, or do they perhaps intend that there should be some provision, perhaps alongside the national mobility scheme, for putting tenants in touch with each other? Unless the Government's aim has some practical manifestation, existing tenants will not benefit much from the amendments.
Secondly, I am concerned about the form in which the grounds for refusal by the local authority appear in amendment No. 186. I draw the attention of the House to the wording of grounds 3 and 4. The Under-Secretary identified a problem. He said that a certain amount of ambiguity is necessary beause it is almost impossible to define under-occupation, over-occupation or lack of suitability in precise language. I accept that point, but I do not think that it was necessary to leave the wording so wonderfully ambiguous. Under ground 3, the local authority can refuse consent because the accommodation offered "is substantially more extensive". Not only is there considerable room for argumert about what "extensive" means in any instance, but the word "substantial" is a minefield for interpretation.
Ground 4 is even worse. Under ground 4, the local authority can refuse consent because
The extent of the accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is not reasonably suitable to the needs of the proposed assignee and his family.
If a tenant is brave enough to challenge a local authority's decision in the courts, the courts will have grave difficulty in establishing what we meant by "reasonably" and "suitable". There is no attempt in the ground to define the meaning of "reasonably suitable".
Unless there is much greater clarity about the possible grounds for refusal tenents will not know where they stand, and one of the advantages of a right to exchange is that tenants should know where they stand.
I am therefore reluctant to give a 100 per cent. welcome to the Government's decision, because there is no practical mechanism to give effect to the right in practice and because——

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is usually enormously well informed, but he has not mentioned the existence of the tenants exchange scheme which provides exactly the object which he seeks. It puts tenants who wish to move to another part of the country in touch with tenants in that part of the country who are interested in moving to their area. We have done that. It is a computerised system that was set up by my Department two years ago. We need the right to exchange because there is no advantage in tenants contacting each other and agreeing to exchange if local authorities then stand in the way. The right to exchange is therefore an integral part of our strategy for mobility, of which the tenants exchange scheme, about which I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows, is an important component.

Mr. Smith: I am indeed aware of the tenants exchange scheme. I am also well aware of the fact that it is not working terribly well and not just because of the point that the Minister has made. Some local authorities are unfortunately refusing to afford tenants the ability to assign tenancies to others by an exchange. It is also not working because of the publicity that it has been given and because the way in which it operates and the facility made available to tenants throughout the country to participate in it are not yet fully fledged. I hope that the Government will give some attention to the possibility of enshrining that right in legislation and beefing up the tenants exchange scheme, perhaps by putting more resources into it, giving it more publicity and making tenants more aware of their rights.
9.30 pm
I hope that the Government will come forward with a commitment to do that as, without such a commitment to make a practice of the preaching, the legislation will not achieve much. I wish that the Government had been slightly more clear and precise in their language in framing possible grounds for refusal. For the two reasons that I have given, my welcome is muted but I still believe that the Government are absolutely right to ensure that there is a need to give tenants the right to exchange. I welcome their conversion to that principle.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I recollect that when the Minister made this announcement in Committee it was received with various degrees of enthusiasm. My recollection is that the Government were highly enthusiastic, that I was almost entirely enthusiastic and that the Labour party was less enthusiastic. Things appear to have moved considerably. I welcome that, because the right of tenants to exchange is something that many of them have wanted for a long time.
I wish only to urge the Department to move a little down the road that has been suggested by the hon. Member


for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). To ensure that the right to exchange is meaningful to the many tenants who want to get in touch and exchange with other tenants, it would be helpful if the Department considered some form of guideline or administrative direction that prevents people having to go to court to fight battles about whether they can transfer. As a result of fighting battles on behalf of tenants and others in the county courts and arguing on the interpretation of Housing Acts, I believe that grounds 3 and 4 will give rise to enormous scope. I think that the Minister accepts that they are open to many interpretations and it will probably be a long time before the law settles down and is clear.
We are normally involved with how many rooms a family needs. I have no doubt that it is acceptable in this context to allow for provision for a spare room for visitors. I am told that that is the policy in my borough and many others, although it seldom happens. I also have no doubt that it is no good making the definition that of statutory overcrowding as set out in the Housing Act 1957, which counts people sleeping in the living room and other utterly unsuitable means of assessing need. I hope that the Department will be able to supplement those provisions with some form of direction—such as it issues on many matters—to local authorities, after consultation with them, to lay down room numbers and bedroom numbers as a back-up to interpreting grounds 3 and 4. Ground 3 would be much clearer if people had such information.
Ground 4 also needs some directions. "Reasonably suitable" can mean all sorts of things in the eyes of the authority. I do not know whether it means that an authority would not consider approving an assignment of a family with young children to go to a tower block. If it does, it may mean above the sixth floor or the twelfth floor. It could mean all sorts of things. To leave it as a piece of legislation that could relate to the position of the block or the property, its relationship to neighbouring properties and its proximity to main road, is totally unsatisfactory.
I hope that we can ensure that the scheme will work without people having to have recourse to the courts, which is expensive, time-consuming and results in inconsistency throughout the country. Some cases are referred to the Court of Appeal and others to the House of Lords, and would be better resolved at an early stage. I welcome the right to exchange, and hope that the resources which would allow the tenants exchange scheme to become a reality, will be made more effective. Tenants in Southwark and I often have great difficulty finding out which authority governs the area to which they wish to move. I hope that this is a start and that the Government take it further.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 65 to 75 agreed to.

New Clause

RENT NOT TO INCREASE ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS

Lords amendment: No 79, after clause 24, insert the following new clause—
.In section 39 of the 1980 Act (rent not to be increased on account of tenant's improvements) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—


"(b) if he has died and on his death the tenancy vested under section 30 above, at any time whilst the person in whom the tenancy so vested is a secure tenant of that dwelling-house; or
(c) if he has assigned the tenancy and the assignment was made as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of section 37(1) above, at any time whilst the assignee is a secure tenant of that dwelling-house; or
(d) if the tenancy has been transferred to his spouse or former spouse by an order under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983, at any time whilst the transferee is a secure tenant of that dwelling-house"."

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords amendment.
The amendment fulfils an undertaking given when the Bill was in Committee. The Government accepted in principle the argument that the benefit of section 39 of the Housing Act 1980, under which a landlord must disregard improvements carried out by a secure tenant in determining an increase in rent, should not be confined to the tenant and, on his death. to his successor spouse. The amendment therefore extends the benefit of section 39 to members of the tenant's family.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25

RIGHT TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS

Lords amendment: No. 80, in page 27, line 20, leave out from "sums" to "as" in line 23.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
When the House last saw the right to repair clause, it contained an upper limit on the amount which landlords could reimburse tenants who satisfactorily carried out repairs under the right to repair scheme. Clause 25. as originally drafted, would have entitled tenants to recover from landlords such sums as might be determined under the scheme, subject to their being not greater than the cost that the landlords would have incurred carrying out the repairs. That proviso limiting the amount of repayment has now been removed. That is the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Chris Smith: I wish to prove the Government further about their exact intentions regarding this part of the clause. We had lengthy arguments in Committee about the so-called right to repair, which remains as it stands in clause 25—a paltry shadow of what it could have been. The major argument was about the Government's intention declared in their draft regulations that the reimbursement to the tenant who carried out the repair should be no more than 75 per cent. of what it would have cost the landlord. That is lower than the 100 per cent. which it would have cost the landlord as imposed by the Act.
In abandoning the phrase in clause 25, are the Goverment also abandoning the 75 per cent. rule, which they have previously intended to bring in under the regulations, and have they been converted to the point, which the Opposition made insistently in Committee, that the right and proper thing is for a tenant who carries out a repair to be reimbursed to the exact value of the repair?


We also suggested that an amount for administration should be added, but at this stage we would be entirely satisfied if the Government gave their word that they intended the scheme to operate in the way that we suggest, which is that tenants should receive exactly what they paid to carry out the repairs. Is that the Government's intention? If so, we welcome it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, am worried about this matter, which was debated at great length in Committee. We welcome the way in which the Government appear to be moving because they are removing the limitation about which many of us were unhappy. Since this part of the Bill provides the framework under which the scheme will be operated, if we are to respond properly to the debate we must know the details of the scheme. If necessary, we shall have to urge the Government to do more than they have said they will do. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us about the Government's intention, especially on the question of whether a tenant who carries out a repair will be reimbursed fully and will not be out of pocket.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister will be aware that local authorities believe that, if they must live with this scheme, the Government should introduce regulations to make it a default scheme. The right to repair should not arise until there has been a default by the local authority, especially if the authority has conscientiously set out a timetable for carrying out the repairs. The right to repair should not be a charter for those who wish to be awkward, but should help those who genuinely need repairs. In making the regulations, will the Minister follow the almost unanimous advice from local authorities that the scheme should be based on default?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the points made.
Hon. Members are right to say that the Government acknowledged that in some circumstances it would be proper for tenants to receive payments for carrying out repairs which cost more than the landlord would have incurred. Our consultation document recognised the need for such provision if the landlord defaulted under the proposed scheme. The circumstances envisaged were that a landlord might fail to respond within the prescribed time to a tenant's application to carry out a repair, and might not specify the cost to him of carrying out that repair. If the tenant then went ahead with the repair in ignorance of the amount by which he could be reimbursed, he might be out of pocket. Indeed, his costs might exceed those envisaged by the landlord. In fairness, he should be entitled to recover his reasonable costs in full provided that the repair was otherwise within the terms of the scheme.
Consultation is continuing. The Government are considering carefully the responses to the paper and welcome the views expressed in the House this evening. When our consideration of the responses is complete we shall issue draft regulations for further comment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27

HOUSING ASSOCIATION GRANT

Lords amendment: No. 81, to leave out Clause 27.

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this amendment involves privilege. With it we may take Lords amendments Nos. 84 and 88.

Sir George Young: These are minor and technical amendments in substitution of what was clause 27 of the Bill. The new clause in amendment No. 84 is designed to cover cases where housing association grant is to be paid on a project of repair and improvement and the project is already under way when the right to buy is claimed or exercised. The effect of the amendments is to enable the Secretary of State to reduce grant in every case where, by the time of payment, the dwelling house has been sold. This will put the Secretary of State in a position to ensure that no loss or no undue profit is made by the housing associations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please excuse my ignorance. Can you tell me what happens when you declare that something involves a question of privilege in the other place? It does not appear to have altered our procedure, but I am sure I ought to know what it means. I have not had the experience of needing to ask before. It would be helpful to be informed now rather than wait another year for it to happen again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that happens in this House is that we waive the privilege and an appropriate entry is made in the Journal. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded me. I shall cause the appropriate entry to be made.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

New clause

POWER TO EXTEND RIGHT TO BUY ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 82, before clause 28, insert—
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, in cases falling within subsection (2) below, Part I of the 1980 Act and this Part of this Act shall have effect with such modifications as are specified in the order.
(2) The cases referred to in subsection (1) above are cases where there are in a dwelling-house let on a secure tenancy one or more interests to which this subsection applies; and this subsection applies to any interest which—

(a) is held by a body mentioned in section 18(3) above; and
(b) is immediately superior to the interest of the landlord or to another interest to which this subsection applies.
(3) An order under this section may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case and may contain such consequential, supplementary or transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(4) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The new clause proposed in the amendment provides for a new power necessary as a consequence of our proposals, to which the House has agreed, to bring county council tenancies within the scope of the 1980 legislation. I give the House an undertaking that local authority associations will be offered an opportunity to comment before any order is made by my right hon. Friend under this clause. Any such order will come before the House in the ordinary way and will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope that the House will agree with the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: I wish to raise a small but important point. I was amazed to be consulted in the Lobby by someone who showed me correspondence with a county council whose tenants may become secure tenants as a result of the Bill. That county council had given notice of intention to take proceedings against its tenants to evict them before the Bill becomes law. It is disgraceful for a county council to try to anticipate the passage of the legislation and to deny someone security of tenure on which there is no disagreement on either side of the House. I hope that the Minister will deplore that sort of action.

Mr. Gow: I agree entirely with everything said by the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

DWELLING-HOUSES ON PUBLIC TRUST LAND

Lords amendment: No. 83, after the clause last inserted, insert—
 Where a dwelling-house let on a secure tenancy is land held—

(a) for the purposes of section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 (pleasure grounds); or
(b) in accordance with section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 (duty of local authority to maintain open spaces and burial grounds),
then, for the purpose of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act and this Part of this Act, the dwelling-house shall be deemed to be freed from any trust arising solely by virtue of its being land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with the said section 164 or, as the case may be, the said section 10.

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new clause is relevant against the background of our proposals to modify the 1980 Act as it affects dwellings held other than under general housing powers. The clause concerns the right to buy of tenants whose homes are situated in parks and other open spaces. I hope that the House will think that this is a sensible amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to, with special entry.

New Clause

REPAYMENT OF HOUSING ASSOCIATION GRANT

Lords amendment: No. 85, after the clause last inserted, insert—
 —(1) In section 30(3) of the 1974 Act (repayment etc. of housing association grant in certain circumstances), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(aa) there has been paid to the association in respect of any land to which the grant relates an amount payable in pursuance of—

(i) the covenant required by section 104B(2) of the Housing Act 1957 or section 8(1) of the Housing Act 1980 (covenant for repayment of discount) or any other provision to the like effect; or
(ii) the provision required by paragraph 3, 6 or 7 of Schedule 3 to the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 (terms of shared ownership lease) or any other provision to the like effect;".
(2) If, after a housing association grant has been made under section 29 of the 1974 Act to an association registered under section 13 of that Act

(a) there is such a disposal as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 30 of that Act; or
(b) there is made such a payment as is mentioned in paragraph (aa) of that subsection,

the association shall notify the Secretary of State of the disposal or payment and, if so required by written notice of the Secretary of State, shall furnish him with such particulars of and information relating to the disposal or payment as are specified in the notice.
(3) Where a housing association grant has been so made, the Chief Land Registrar may furnish the Secretary of State with such particulars and information as he may reasonably require for the purpose of determining—

(a) Whether there has been such a disposal as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 30 of the 1974 Act; or
(b) whether there has been made such a payment as is mentioned in paragraph (aa) of that subsection."

Sir George Young: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 35, at end insert—
' (4) The amendment made by subsection (1) above shall apply whether the payment was made before or after the commencement date. '.
This amendment will bring the Secretary of State's powers to recover grant in respect of HAG funded projects into line with the full range of circumstances which may now arise in respect of payments associated with the disposal of housing association dwellings, either outright or on shared ownership terms.
This does not represent a change in the general policy on the recovery of housing association grant, but there is currently no power to recover any outstanding balance of housing association grant in various circumstances in which the dwelling is disposed of. The intention is well known to housing associations and I do not think that this provision is controversial.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90 agreed to.

Clause 34

APPROVED INSPECTORS

Lords amendment No. 91, in page 35, line 23, at end insert—
( ) There shall be paid on an application for any such approval as is referred to in subsection (1) above—



(a) where the application is made to the Secretary of State, such fee as may be prescribed by building regulations;
(b) where the application is made to a body designated by him as mentioned in that subsection, such fee as that body may determine."

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 6, leave out paragraph (b) I understand that with this amendment we can discuss Lords amendments Nos. 92 to 94, 101, with amendment (a), Lords amendments Nos. 102 to 105, 108 to 110 and 213.
There are three sets of amendments, and they all relate to fees charged in relation to building control. Under these amendments, the Government are proposing that the fees for the appointment of a building inspector may be fixed not by the Government or the local authority but by the body that appoints the inspector. That is to say, the power to insist on a charge for the performance of a public duty is being privatised as well as the duty itself. That is an unusual provision and one to which we object.
Our second objection is that the fees to be fixed for charges to be made by the building inspector will again be fixed by a private body and not by central Government. The third amendment, which has not been selected, opposes the provision that a local authority will be able to fix its own scale of charges for building approval work.
It is right that, on such matters as building approval, which require public integrity, single scale charges should operate across the country. It would be wrong to introduce competition as between one local authority and another as to the level of fees that are to be charged for building inspection work. That has never been the case in the past, and it should never be the case in the future. This is even worse because it could introduce an element of undesirable competition as between the local authority and the private competitor who has been given the powers to exercise building control powers and to fix his own level of charges.
I am not against competition, and I spent a great deal of time as a Minister trying to encourage it, but there are times when competition is undesirable, and this is one of them. The combination of these proposals that we seek to amend is that local authorities will have to obtain expensive skilled staff to deal with potentially complex problems in circumstances where work reverts to them, and will have to recoup the cost of doing so with a reduced throughput of work. That will create a vicious circle for local authorities, of having to provide a service for supervising large-scale and complex developments, with a decline in work loads, and having to charge fees in excess of those bargain basement fees charged by private inspectors for doing the more simple and less costly low rise developments.
The fees will be modest. I do not think that anybody has suggested that the fees charged for building approval are excessive. In the public advantage, it is right that the Department of the Environment should be answerable in the House for the level of fees charged for this public duty—it is not a private service or duty. Secondly, it is wrong that there should be any undercutting of fees as between a local authority and a private inspector. If the House is to confer powers on private inspectors, which we object to, it should stop there and the Minister should control the level of fees that are charged whether in the private or in the public sector.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I invite the House to reject the hon. Gentleman's amendments to the Lords amendments 91 and 101 and to agree with the Lords in the amendments as proposed. I also wish to discuss Lords amendments 91 to 94, 101 to 105, 108 to 110 and 213.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has, of course, described the three sub-groups of amendments here, all about fees, but different kinds of fees.
The amendments in the first sub-group make detailed changes to the procedures for approving private inspectors, to reflect the discussions we have been having with the professional institutions that are interested in becoming designated bodies. The effect of amendment 91 would be that each designated body would be able to fix its own fee for considering applications for approval, rather than having the fee prescribed by the Secretary of State. This accords with the statement in Cmnd 8179 that approval arrangements will be expected to be self-financing.
It seems to us entirely reasonable to allow the designated bodies to set their own fees, because they are, after all, in the best position to know how much it costs them to provide the service. This is the provision which the Opposition amendment seeks to remove. It would give the responsibility for setting these fees to the Secretary of State. We take the contrary view, of course, and ask why the Government should interfere in the matter between a professional body and its own members. The Secretary of State's control will be exercised through the process of designating the body and through the power that he has to withdraw the designation. The Secretary of State will, however, charge fees, prescribed in regulations, in relation to any application for approval which is made directly to him. This provision remains unchanged.
The amendments in the second sub-group are closely parallel. They make virtually identical provision for the arrangements for the approval of persons to give certificates, under clause 48, that plans show compliance with prescribed provisions of building regulations.
Turning to the third sub-group of amendments, we find ourselves in fresh territory. The new clause at amendment 105 is not about private certification at all, but about the established and continuing system of local authority control. At the moment, local authorities have a monopoly of building control services and the fees that they charge for providing these are therefore precisely specified in regulations.
The introduction of private sector competition to the building control system will create a completely new situation. We mean the alternatives to be genuine options affording the developer a choice between two systems, each of which is paid for by the people who use it, without subsidy from the generality of taxpayers and ratepayers.
Under the present system, the Secretary of State prescribes fees in relation to the total costs of building control in all the local authorities in England and Wales. As the volume of work and the mix of buildings vary from one authority to another, the fees produce for each authority a different proportion of its costs.
The new clause at amendment 105 will enable building regulations to authorise local authorities to set their own fees. This will not only be more equitable and present a truer picture of the costs of services in different districts, but will also be a valuable spur, we believe, to efficiency within local authorities. They will not be able to assume, as they do now, that any shortfall in income can be thrown


into the balance for the calculation of the RSG settlement. There are other advantages that we can foresee coming from this new system.
None of this will affect the costs of providing the building control service at all. It will simply ensure that the costs at present incurred by local authorities are for the first time clearly identified and accounted for and that they are met by those who use the service rather than by the ratepayer.
Amendments 108, 109 and 213 provide that the new clause shall be brought into effect by commencement order. Amendment No. 109 also incorporates another technical correction. Clause 50 repeals a number of unwanted provisions in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; in consequence of one of these, part of section 69 of the 1974 Act is repealed.
10 pm
Amendment No. 110 will enable those provisions of the Bill which require commencement orders for their coming into effect those, that is, in clause 56(2)(a) (b) and (c)—to be brought into effect on different dates.

Question put and negatived.

Lords amendment Nos. 91 to 94 agreed to.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing and Building Control Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Lords amendments Nos. 95 to 106, agreed to.

New Clause

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO SANITATION AND BUILDINGS

Lords amendment: No. 107, after clause 50 insert the following new clause:
 —(1) Part XII of the 1936 Act (enforcement and other general provisions) shall have effect as if so much of Part II of the 1961 Act (sanitation and buildings) as does not relate to building regulations were contained in Part II of the 1936 Act.
(2) In the following provisions, namely—

(a) so much of Part II of the 1936 Act (sanitation and building) as does not relate to building regulations;
(b) sections 137 and 138 of that Act (certain buildings to be supplied with water); and
(c) so much of Part II of the 1961 Act as does not relate to building regulations, expressions which are defined by subsection (1) of section 82 of the 1974 Act shall have the meanings given by that subsection."

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 217.

Mr. Roberts: As the House will be aware, the existing law relating to buildings and building regulations is spread in an untidy fashion over a number of statutes. The Law Commission is currently working on a Bill to consolidate those enactments and the present Bill into a single building Bill, which it is hoped will be introduced later this Session. I am sure that the House will welcome this proposal, which, some may say, is long overdue.
One of the problems of the existing maze of legislation is that marginally different definitions and procedural provisions apply to different parts of the enactments. The new clause in amendment No. 107 will ensure that the set of definitions given in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies to all parts of these enactments. Amendment No. 217 expands the long title of the Bill to take account of the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 108 to 134 agreed to.

Schedule 3

TERMS OF A SHARED OWNERSHIP LEASE

Lords amendment: No. 135, in page 64, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert
"R=F(100-S)/100"

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 136, 137, 138 and 160.

Mr. Gow: This is a group of technical amendments, which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 136 to 178 agreed to.

Schedule 6

AMENDMENTS OF SECTIONS I04B AND I04C OF I957 ACT

Lords amendment: No. 179, in page 76, line 3, after "etc.)" insert
for the words "by order of the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "under section 19 of the Housing Act 1980" and".

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendment No. 182.

Mr. Gow: These are minor technical amendments which are needed to correct an oversight in the drafting of the 1980 Act, for which I apologise to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 180 to 185 and 186 with Government amendments, 187 to 189, 190 with Government amendments, two Government manuscript amendments, and amendment No. 191 agreed to.

Schedule 10

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 192, in page 84, line 4, at end insert
or, where the right is that mentioned in section 1(1)(b) above, twelve weeks".

(1A) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "section 7(5)" there shall be substituted the words "section 7(1)" and for the words "section 7(2) or (4)" there shall be substituted the words "section 7(1A), (2) or (4)."."

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In a nutshell, the amendment gives slightly more time to local authorities to respond to right-to-buy applications when flats are involved. If the House wishes I can explain that in slightly more detail but I take it that the explanation that I have given is sufficient.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 193 to 215, 216 with amendments, and 217 agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. John Major and Mr. Wyn Roberts; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr.Gow.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The order of the business after the Easter recess already announced to the House has been slightly rearranged. The business will now be as follows:
WEDNESDAY, 25 APRIL—Supply (13th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the deterioration of Britain's transport system. Third Reading of the Trade Union Bill.
THURSDAY, 26 APRIL—Second Reading of the Housing Defects Bill. Motions relating to the National Health Service Charges (Amendment) Regulations.

Local Government Superannuation

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government Superannuation (Amendment) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 201), dated 23rd February 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be annulled.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House also to take the second motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1984 (S I., 1984, No. 254), dated 29th February 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
I wish to raise two points—first, what is contained in the regulations and, secondly, what is not. The Government have put forward the regulations which make the sickness benefit that a potential beneficiary may receive under the Local Government Superannuation Regulations subject to superannuation contributions. Since the advent of statutory sick pay, this arises only in respect of somebody who has been off sick for more than eight weeks. I am sure that the Government will argue that this is simply to correct an anomaly and to bring the schemes into line with the other public service schemes.
The change adversely affects existing local government employees. For a married employee in receipt of sickness benefit at the rate of £41·95, it will lead to a loss of up to £2·52 a week, this at a time when such a person will be incurring additional expenses in what, by definition, at that stage will be long-term sickness because, as I say, this arises only when a person has been off sick for eight weeks; before that time that person would not have been able to claim sick pay.
This was to have been justified on the grounds that it cured an anomaly. If there is to be parity or consistency with other public service schemes, it must cut both ways. While it is true that other public service schemes already take into account sickness benefit received under the regulations proposed for local government schemes, other public service schemes are better than the local government ones in many respects.
That raises the question of the regulations for part-timers. Local authority trade unions with, I understand, the assent of most local authority employers, proposed as long ago as 1980 that certain part-time employees should be brought within the ambit of the local government superannuation schemes. I understand that that has been the subject of much discussion at ministerial level but, for reasons which are becoming less and less explicable, Ministers have not so far seen fit to bring forward regulations to the House.
This would have been an ideal opportunity to have brought forward those regulations, and if that had happened I would be making an even briefer speech. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will deal in some detail with why the part-time regulations have not been brought forward at the same time as this change is being made.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Like the hon. Member for

Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I have performed some swift surgery to the remarks which I had prepared for this debate.
In a nutshell, the issue is that a large number of local government employees are better off when they are sick than when they are at work. Their total income, in terms of remuneration paid by their employer and sickness benefits paid by the DHSS, remains unchanged, and the level of superannuation benefit to which they are entitled is not affected by their absence from duty.
Because of a technicality in the regulations, which comprise the local government pension scheme, they have been required to pay contributions only on that part of their income which is paid by their employer, and the benefit paid by the DHSS has not been similarly liable.

Mr. Norman Hogg: For how long has this anomaly existed? Is it new, or has it been in existence for a long time?

Sir George Young: The situation was exacerbated by the introduction of SSP on 6 April 1983. Our original intention was to put the anomaly right at that date, but because of consultations that were necessary with the people involved, we were not able to do so at that time.

Mr. Hogg: What is SSP?

Sir George Young: It reflects badly on the hon. Gentleman that he does not know what statutory sick pay is. It was an important social security measure introduced last year, on which there was a substantial debate in the House. The hon. Gentleman voted several times on the issue. I regret that he did not inform himself on the matters on which he was dividing.
The superannuation contributions in the circumstances I have outlined fall by between £1·50 and £2·50 per week according to the domestic circumstances of the persons concerned. Sooner or later, their employers would be required to compensate for this shortfall; so there have also been public expenditure implications.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn conceded, this is not the case with teachers, firemen or police officers. They are employed by local authorities in one guise or another, but they contribute to different pension schemes. If a teacher is sick, his superannuation contributions are based on his full salary, and the same should be true of local government employees as a whole. We are seeking to rectify an anomaly and to bring one group of local government employees into line with other groups.
The hon. Member for Blackburn raised another issue, which he conceded was not actually before the House. He asked what my right hon. Friend intended to do about part-timers. It is taking a long time to reach a decision on that—the public expenditure implications are notoriously difficult to unravel. I cannot accept the proposition that the proposals for part-timers are relevant to the regulations that we are now debating, or that the case for one depends on making a case for the other. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am rather sorry that this is a short debate. It deals with a matter that is important to local government officers. I wish to place on record some of the points that the National Local and Government Officers Association—with which I have some connection—wants to make known.
The primary legislation under which the regulations are made is section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations after consulting the parties concerned—the employers and the employees in local government.
The history of local government superannuation arrangements is that until 1953 direct and comprehensive provision was made by public general Acts. The first enabling act was the Local Government Superannuation Act 1953, with Parliament delegating the making of non-contentious legislation to Ministers. From that time until August 1980, the practice of legislating by regulation was satisfactory and acceptable to both parties. Reasonable requests from both parties for legislation were responded to and no attempt was made to impose provisions not acceptable to both parties.
In August 1980, for the first time since the regulatory process was introduced, the then Secretary of State refused to sign regulations intended to admit part-time staff to the scheme, despite agreement by both parties and regardless of the fact that his Department, by drafting the regulations, had approved the provision in principle many years before.
The Secretary of State has also refused to comply with requests from both sides of local government to introduce regulations for low-cost short-term pensions for the widows of employees who retired before 1 April 1972. Despite protests by the unions representing the interests of staff, he made a statutory instrument in 1983, No. 1270, widening the investment powers of local authority. Similarly, in 1984 he made statutory instruments Nos. 201 and 254, although fully aware of opposition to them.
Although Parliament has delegated powers to the Secretary of State, and we are acting within the letter of the law, I submit that the regulatory powers were introduced to avoid using parliamentary time on non-controversial matters. It was never intended to be a vehicle whereby Government could ride roughshod over the wishes of either or both sides of local government and impose their will in a wholly arbitrary manner.
When employees are sick, they are entitled to a period of full pay—usually for a maximum of six weeks, followed by a period of half pay for a similar period. Deductible from full pay is the amount of national insurance sickness benefit.
Prior to the introduction of the 1984 statutory instruments Nos. 201 and 254 superannuation contributions were payable on the amount paid by the employer. The overall position changed from April 1983, when all employers were required to pay statutory sick pay for the first eight weeks of illness. The unions did not object to the continuation of superannuation deductions, even though that represented a worsening of their conditions of service.

Mr. Marcus Fox: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's point, but he is reading too quickly for me. Will he speak more slowly?

Mr. Hogg: Certainly, I shall read even more slowly. Taking advantage of the introduction of statutory sick pay, central Government and local government employers determined, regardless of the opposition of staff interests, to enforce payment of normal superannuation contributions on full pay after the expiration of statutory sick pay. In other words, they were determined to collect

superannuation contributions on sickness benefit payable directly by the state until the entitlement of full pay expired. The unions regarded that action as an unjustifiable deprivation of a service condition enjoyed for 36 years and one that penalised the chronically sick. In essence, that is the unions' point. I do not feel that that point has been answered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
The case put forward by central Government and local government employers is that, unless superannuation contributions are deducted from full pay—including sickness benefits received direct from the state—employees are better off while they are sick than while they are working. That is the point the Minister made. The introduction of statutory sick pay presents an opportunity to regularise the contributions payable by an employee on sick leave. There is a need to secure uniformity with other public service schemes.
The union argument against the case put forward by central Government and local government employers is that at all times the union side wishes to be co-operative. It has never sought to stand in the way of reasonable measures. With every justification, the unions could have opposed the deduction of contributions from statutory sick pay on the ground that it would have represented a deprivation of a service condition that had operated for 36 years from 1947 to 1983. The unions did not do so because the introduction of statutory sick pay per se occasioned no amendment to the scheme. It was not thought unreasonable that employees on short-term sickness should pay contributions on the full pay received direct from their employers.
It was recognised also that a failure to agree would have involved the employers in substantial and hurried adjustments to their computer programmes, and that always worries them. Any argument about securing uniformity in the public service rings hollow to local government employees after prolonged and, so far, abortive efforts to obtain the entrance of part-time staff to the scheme. Local government has the only public service scheme that does not make provision for part-time staff. It is blatent hypocrisy for the Government to seek to justify the statutory instruments on the ground of clarity. In view of their attitude to part-time staff.
For those reasons, we tabled the prayer, and I hope that the Government will display a better attitude to this matter than they have shown this evening.

Question put and negatived.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That, in the course of its consideration of the matter of the effect of European Community policies on Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 30th April at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Neubert.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

REDUCTION IN NOISE FROM MOTOR VEHICLES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8307/83 and supports the Government's intention to seek the implementation of the recommendations contained therein.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Question agreed to.

LIAISON

Ordered,
That Sir Peter Emery be added to the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Motion made,
That Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Bernard Conlan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn,—[Mr. Neubert.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o' clock.